Skip to main content
. 2022 Mar 31;9:749948. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2022.749948

Table 1.

Characteristics of the included trials and participants.

Included studies Continent N (Vitamin D vs. placebo or no treatment) Gender (male vs. female) Age, y (IQR or SD)a HIV infection status VD oral intake dosage/
frequency
Ca oral intake dosage Treatment duration Change of spine BMD (%)c (vitamin D vs. placebo or no treatment) Change of hip BMD (%) (Vitamin D vs. placebo or no treatment) Quality evaluation
1 Havens et al. (24) America 99 vs. 89 179 vs. 33 22.0 (21.0–23.0) HIV-positive 50,000 IU/4 W 0 48 W 1.15% (−0.75 to 2.74%) vs. 0.09% (−1.49 to 2.61%) −0.17% (−2.12 to 1.73%) vs. −0.42% (−1.66 to 0.71%) A
2 Overton et al. (25) America 79 vs. 86 149 vs. 16 36 (28–47) HIV-positive 4,000 IU/D 1,000 mg 48 W −1.23% (−3.73 to 0.20%) vs. −2.94% (−4.87 to −0.94%) −1.36% (−3.43 to 0.50%) vs. −3.22% (−5.56 to −0.88%) A
3 Boontanondha et al. (26) Thailand 9 vs. 9 17 vs. 1 30.3 (±8.9) HIV-positive 20,000 IU/W 1,250 mg 24 W −3.6% (−4.4 to −2.5%) vs. −4% (−4.9 to −1.3%) −2.7% (−4.9 to −1.6%) vs. −2.8% (−4.3 to −2.5%) B
4 Pornpaisalsakul et al. (21) Thailand 38 vs. 42 66 vs. 14 18 (17–20) HIV-negative 400 IU/D 1,200 mg 24 W 0.05% (0–0.05%) vs. 0.03% (−0.1 to 0.03%) NAb B
5 Nct (22) America 79 vs. 86 149 vs. 16 18–65 HIV-positive 4,000 IU/D 1,000 mg 48 W −1.41% (−3.78–0.00%) vs. −2.91% (−4.84 to −1.06%) −1.46% (−3.16 to −0.40%) vs. −3.19% (−5.12 to −1.02%) A
6 Puthanakit et al. (20) Thailand 24 vs. 24 NA (49%) 14.3 (13.0–15.5) HIV-negative 400 IU/D 1,500 mg 6 M 0.65 (0.13–1.20) vs. −0.50 (−1.00%to−0.06) NA B
7 Kortenaar et al. (27) Canada 24 vs. 15 39 vs. 0 34 (29–40) HIV-negative 1,000 IU/D 0–1,000 mg 12 M −2.11% (−2.61 to 1.40%) vs. −2.14% (−4.01 to −1.45%) −0.89% (−2.76 to −0.09%) vs. −0.69% (−2.23 to 1.58%) A

aStands for mean age (±SD) for 30.3 (±8.9); stands for all for 18–65, stands for IQR (interquartile range) for others.

bNot available.

cChange of spine/hip BMD (bone mineral density) means the percentage increase.