Digestery
Everyday supplements › Vitamin D and Infections › Studies

Pooled review (meta-analysis)

Pooled review of 50 studies: vitamin D did not clearly change pneumonia in children

Milani and colleagues · Allergy · 2024

Original title: A systematic review and meta-analysis on nutritional and dietary interventions for the treatment of acute respiratory infection in pediatric patients: An EAACI taskforce.

Under review. A person has not yet checked this summary against the paper. It is written from the PubMed abstract. Until a person checks it, search engines are asked not to list this page.

What the study found

No difference

Pooled results on vitamin D did not show any effect in children with pneumonia. Zinc may shorten hospital stay. No single supplement can be recommended for routine treatment.

The study at a glance

Type of study
Pooled review (meta-analysis)
Who or what was studied
50 studies · Children with acute respiratory infections such as pneumonia
What was tested
Diet changes and supplements (zinc, vitamins A, D, E, probiotics) as treatment
What it measured
Other health or performance measures
Who has a stake
No disclosure in PubMed
No disclosure in PubMed; funded by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.
Journal
Allergy, 2024
Source
PubMed record 38174413. This page is based on the abstract only.

How much this study counts

  • ✓Pools the results of 50 studies.
  • •A pooled review is only as strong as the studies it pools.
  • •Measured other health measures, not colds, flu and other respiratory infections itself.
  • •The PubMed record has no conflict-of-interest statement.
  • •Summarized from the PubMed abstract only. The full paper may hold details the abstract leaves out.

✓ Strength– Limit• Note

These points come from fixed rules about the type of study, its size and length, what it measured, and who has a stake. Every study on Digestery gets the same rules.

Where this study sits

This paper is not on the ladder. It is a pooled review (meta-analysis), and reviews and opinion pieces discuss studies that are already counted on the steps below.

↑ Stronger evidence

  1. Trials in people: colds, flu and chest infections

    10

    2 benefit, 8 no difference

  2. Trials in people: other measures

    5

    1 benefit, 1 mixed, 2 no difference, 1 harm

  3. Trials in people: lab tests or safety

    1

    1 no difference

  4. Population studies

    1

    1 no difference

  5. Blood levels and genes

    4

    3 benefit, 1 no difference

↓ Weaker evidence

  • Points to benefit
  • Mixed
  • No difference
  • No direction
  • Points to harm

How it fits with the other research

The short answer to “Does vitamin D prevent colds and infections?”

Not clearly; any effect looks small.

Confidence: low. Based on 33 on-topic papers.

Read the full answer

Other reviews on this question

See all 33 studies on this question

How this page was made

Label

First read of the abstract
Claude Sonnet
Independent second read
Claude Haiku
Differences settled
The two reads differed. The reviewer checked the abstract and kept the first read. Claude Opus 5.5.
Headline
Claude Sonnet, from the checked study record. A script checked its numbers and wording.
Numbers
Checked against the abstract by a script
“How much this study counts”
Fixed rules, the same for every study
Source check by a person
Not yet. Required before search engines may list this page.

Spot an error? Email a flag with a link to your source, or use the form on the question page.