↓ Skip to main content

Vitamin D deficiency as a risk factor for infection, sepsis and mortality in the critically ill: systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
25 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
214 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
215 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Vitamin D deficiency as a risk factor for infection, sepsis and mortality in the critically ill: systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Critical Care, December 2014
DOI 10.1186/s13054-014-0660-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kim de Haan, AB Johan Groeneveld, Hilde RH de Geus, Mohamud Egal, Ard Struijs

Abstract

IntroductionIn Europe, vitamin D deficiency is highly prevalent varying between 40% to 60% in the healthy general adult population. The consequences of vitamin D deficiency for sepsis and outcome in critically ill patients remains controversial. We therefore systematically reviewed observational cohort studies on vitamin D deficiency on the intensive care unit.MethodsFourteen observational reports published from January 2000 to March 2014, retrieved from Pubmed and Embase, involving 9,715 critically ill patients and serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 (25 (OH)-D) concentrations, were meta-analysed.ResultsLevels of 25 (OH)-D less than 50 nmol/L were associated with increased rates of infection (risk ratio (RR) 1.49, 95% (confidence interval (CI) 1.12 to 1.99), P =0.007), sepsis (RR 1.46, 95% (CI 1.27 to 1.68), P <0.001), 30-day mortality (RR 1.42, 95% (CI 1.00 to 2.02), P =0.05), and in-hospital mortality (RR 1.79, 95% (CI 1.49 to 2.16), P <0.001). In a subgroup analysis of adjusted data including vitamin D deficiency as a risk factor for 30 day-mortality the pooled RR was 1.76 (95% CI 1.37 to 2.26, P <0.001).ConclusionsThis meta-analysis suggests that vitamin D deficiency increases susceptibility for severe infections and mortality of the critically ill.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 215 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Hong Kong 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 211 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 31 14%
Student > Master 28 13%
Student > Bachelor 22 10%
Other 20 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 7%
Other 50 23%
Unknown 49 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 93 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 15 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 4%
Engineering 4 2%
Other 23 11%
Unknown 55 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 June 2023.
All research outputs
#1,366,314
of 25,462,162 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,173
of 6,566 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,749
of 367,437 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#8
of 140 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,462,162 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,566 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 367,437 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 140 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.