主页 > 医学讨论 >
【文摘发布】VitD补充与总死亡率
A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Author: Philippe Autier, MD; Sara Gandini, PhD
Resource: Arch Intern Med. 2007;167:1730-1737.
Background Ecological and observational studies suggest that low vitamin D status could be associated with higher mortality from life-threatening conditions including cancer, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes mellitus that account for 60% to 70% of total mortality in high-income countries. We examined the risk of dying from any cause in subjects who participated in randomized trials testing the impact of vitamin D supplementation (ergocalciferol [vitamin D2] or cholecalciferol [vitamin D3]) on any health condition.
Methods The literature up to November 2006 was searched without language restriction using the following databases: PubMed, ISI Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded), EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library.
Results We identified 18 independent randomized controlled trials, including 57 311 participants. A total of 4777 deaths from any cause occurred during a trial size–adjusted mean of 5.7 years. Daily doses of vitamin D supplements varied from 300 to 2000 IU. The trial size–adjusted mean daily vitamin D dose was 528 IU. In 9 trials, there was a 1.4- to 5.2-fold difference in serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D between the intervention and control groups. The summary relative risk for mortality from any cause was 0.93 (95% confidence interval, 0.87-0.99). There was neither indication for heterogeneity nor indication for publication biases. The summary relative risk did not change according to the addition of calcium supplements in the intervention.
Conclusions Intake of ordinary doses of vitamin D supplements seems to be associated with decreases in total mortality rates. The relationship between baseline vitamin D status, dose of vitamin D supplements, and total mortality rates remains to be investigated. Population-based, placebo-controlled randomized trials with total mortality as the main end point should be organized for confirming these findings. 我来认领，24小时内不提交译文，请其他战友自由认领！ Title: Vitamin D Supplementation and Total Mortality
A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
VitD补充与总死亡率 飞天猫12战友，首先感谢你的翻译，我提出以下建议：
1. 生态学和观察研究提示了在危机生命的情况包括癌症、心血管疾病和糖尿病，低VitD状态可能与高死亡率相关，由此可以解释高收入国家总的死亡率为60%－ 70%。我们通过在健康状态下影响VitD的供给，对参与随机探索性实验的受试者进行任何情况下的死亡风险进行检测。
修改为：生态学和观察研究提示低VitD水平与危及生命的情况包括癌症、心血管疾病和糖尿病引起的高死亡率相关，由此引起的占高收入国家总死亡率的60%－ 70%。本研究调查了参与随机试验的个体因任何原因导致的死亡风险，每一个体均检测VitD补充对于任何健康状况的影响。 飞天猫的翻译技巧有待提高哦!
不过热情还是值得学习和鼓励的!
支持! 1.A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
一个随机对照实验的荟萃分析。
2.Background Ecological and observational studies suggest that low vitamin D status could be associated with higher mortality from life-threatening conditions ...
这里的 conditions 应该是疾病的意思吧，而不是情况，
不过background应该如何解释，或者这里有什么作用，请高手指点！！！谢了。
3. 学习publication biases一词，解释为“发表偏倚”---感谢dmfylovewmh 战友，并且比较统一其纠正的地方。
个人愚见，欢迎大家光临指正。 happymingming战友，background 是文摘中的小标题，就是“背景”的意思，像“目的”“方法”“结果”等等这些一样。 [标签:content1][标签:content2]
阅读本文的人还阅读：
作者:admin@医学,生命科学 2011-08-23 17:34
医学,生命科学网