You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 11, Issue 5
  • Association between vitamin D supplementation or serum vitamin D level and susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19 including clinical course, morbidity and mortality outcomes? A systematic review

Responses

Article menu
Public health
Original research
Association between vitamin D supplementation or serum vitamin D level and susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19 including clinical course, morbidity and mortality outcomes? A systematic review
Compose a Response to This Article
Compose Response

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses [https://authors.bmj.com/after-submitting/rapid-responses/].
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses [https://www.bmj.com/company/journals-terms-and-conditions-for-rapid-responses/] and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice [https://www.bmj.com/company/your-privacy/].
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on: 3 June 2021
    Formal proof for an effect remains to be determined by randomized controlled trials
    • Amy L Grove, Associate Professor of Health Technology Assessment and Implementation Science, NIHR Advanced Fellow, Director of Warwick Evid Warwick Medical School
    • Other Contributors:
      • Alexander Tsertsvadze, Independent Consultant
      • Lena Al-Khudairy, Associate Professor of Public Health and Evidence Synthesis
      • Aileen E Clarke, Professor of Public Health and Health Services Research

    The study authors acknowledge the delay from the point of submission of the article to final publication. This delay inevitably means that we were unable to offer a more current version but acknowledge that the field may have moved on as stated in implications of practice. We note that the value of systematic reviews is maximised when they are up-to-date and agree with the author that there may be new relevant evidence which has been published.

    We would like to thank the author for highlighting the issue of a much greater magnitude than the specific one related to our systematic review. Over the past two decades, several authors and organisations highlighted the tension between the average length of time for conducting a systematic review and long editorial process needed to publish the systematic review in a journal (median time: 15 months) versus the need for updating systematic reviews that arises due to emergence of new relevant evidence published over time (median time: 1-5 years).(1-5)

    We believe that the COVID-19 pandemic contributed towards even more prolonged duration of editorial process than usual by overburdening its staff with multiple submissions of studies on SARS-CoV-2 infection. Moreover, the topic of SARS-CoV-2 infection is a new and rapidly emerging field where the evidence for any given research question is still evolving, thus being insufficient and uncertain. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and the fast pace of published literat...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on: 31 May 2021
    Year old data of doubtful relevance
    • Helga Maria Rhein, retired general practitioner previously Sighthill health centre, Edinburgh, EH11 4AU

    Would you please explain why you didn’t ask the authors to update their study? By 10th of June 2020, nearly one year ago, no significant association was found between Covid-19 and vitamin D by the authors. But since then at least two further systematic reviews have shown significant benefits to those who are not vitamin D deficient (1,2) and groups of experts have given statements (3,4), calling for avoidance of vitamin D deficiency. To publicise the study of Grove et al now, in May 2021, so that findings are now delayed by nearly a year, is misleading and in the face of the ongoing pandemic, irresponsible, especially while we are aware of signifiant prevalences of vitamin D deficiency.

    1. https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)32600-X/fulltext
    2. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960076021000765
    3. https://vitamindforall.org/letter.html
    4. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.201912

    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.