↓ Skip to main content

No effects of oral vitamin D supplementation on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, June 2016
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 (88th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
13 X users
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
132 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
193 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
No effects of oral vitamin D supplementation on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial
Published in
BMC Medicine, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12916-016-0638-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ilaria Barchetta, Maria Del Ben, Francesco Angelico, Michele Di Martino, Antonio Fraioli, Giuseppe La Torre, Rosella Saulle, Ludovica Perri, Sergio Morini, Claudio Tiberti, Laura Bertoccini, Flavia Agata Cimini, Francesca Panimolle, Carlo Catalano, Marco Giorgio Baroni, Maria Gisella Cavallo

Abstract

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is the most common hepatic disorder worldwide, reaching prevalence up to 90 % in obese patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), and representing an independent risk factor for cardiovascular mortality. Furthermore, the coexistence of T2D and NAFLD leads to higher incidence of diabetes' complications and additive detrimental liver outcomes. The existence of a close association between NAFLD and hypovitaminosis D, along with the anti-inflammatory and insulin-sensitizing properties of vitamin D, have been largely described, but vitamin D effects on hepatic fat content have never been tested in a randomized controlled trial. We assessed the efficacy and safety of 24-week oral high-dose vitamin D supplementation in T2D patients with NAFLD. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was carried out at the Diabetes Centre of Sapienza University, Rome, Italy, to assess oral treatment with cholecalciferol (2000 IU/day) or placebo in T2D patients with NAFLD. The primary endpoint was reduction of hepatic fat fraction (HFF) measured by magnetic resonance; as hepatic outcomes, we also investigated changes in serum transaminases, CK18-M30, N-terminal Procollagen III Propeptide (P3NP) levels, and Fatty Liver Index (FLI). Secondary endpoints were improvement in metabolic (fasting glycaemia, HbA1c, lipids, HOMA-IR, HOMA-β, ADIPO-IR, body fat distribution) and cardiovascular (ankle-brachial index, intima-media thickness, flow-mediated dilatation) parameters from baseline to end of treatment. Sixty-five patients were randomized, 26 (cholecalciferol) and 29 (placebo) subjects completed the study. 25(OH) vitamin D significantly increased in the active treated group (48.15 ± 23.7 to 89.80 ± 23.6 nmol/L, P < 0.001); however, no group differences were found in HFF, transaminases, CK18-M30, P3NP levels or FLI after 24 weeks. Vitamin D neither changed the metabolic profile nor the cardiovascular parameters. Oral high-dose vitamin D supplementation over 24 weeks did not improve hepatic steatosis or metabolic/cardiovascular parameters in T2D patients with NAFLD. Studies with a longer intervention period are warranted for exploring the effect of long time exposure to vitamin D. This trial was approved on July 2011 by the Ethics Committee of Policlinico Umberto I, Sapienza University of Rome, Italy, and registered at www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu number 2011-003010-17.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 193 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 1 <1%
Unknown 192 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 27 14%
Student > Master 21 11%
Other 11 6%
Researcher 11 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 6%
Other 41 21%
Unknown 71 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 56 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 28 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 2%
Other 11 6%
Unknown 77 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 22 February 2023.
All research outputs
#2,404,802
of 24,975,845 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#1,600
of 3,902 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,090
of 360,441 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#25
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,975,845 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,902 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 360,441 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.