Reply:We appreciate the interest of Kitson et al. in our recent article. 1 We found an association between the cutoff of 20 ng/mL of 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) and sustained virologic response in patients on pegylated interferon-a/ribavirin therapy (odds ratio 5 0.53, 95% confidence interval 0.31-0.91), which is in disagreement with the meta-analysis published by Kitson et al. Thus, these authors suggested some issues that should be clarified.Firstly, Kitson et al. pointed out that our analysis included three different studies with the same Italian cohort. 2-4 However, these studies were published by prestigious journals during consecutive years and provided independent and remarkable information, each of them including a different number of patients. Nevertheless, the significant association was lost if we reanalyzed it considering only one of these studies.Secondly, with regard to the studies that were not included in our meta-analysis, we carefully selected articles from PubMed, SCOPUS, LILACS, and the Cochrane Library. When data were unclear, incomplete, or not explicitly reported, we contacted the corresponding author up to three times in order to obtain additional information. Unfortunately, some authors did not reply or refused to provide the requested data.Thirdly, we only included studies in which vitamin D was assessed as a categorical variable (the thresholds for deficiency, suboptimal, and optimal 25[OH]D levels) because we considered that it was more relevant and useful than the continuous variable.Nevertheless, we appreciate the suggestion, and we will take it into account for future analyses.Fourthly, we included a study 5 with a reduced percentage of patients (35%) receiving vitamin D supplementation. When we excluded this report, the odds ratio value did not change significantly (odds ratio 5 0.58, 95% CI 0.32-0.99).Finally, it is noteworthy that the two meta-analyses have sought the same goal from different perspectives. Kitson et al.Ç s metaanalysis included seven articles and four conference abstracts, while our meta-analysis included 11 studies. Only two articles were analyzed in both meta-analyses. Both studies showed differences in the inclusion/exclusion criteria and in the analysis strategy; thus, Kitson et al. compared baseline levels of 25(OH)D, but we analyzed the data considering several thresholds frequently used to define 25(OH)D status in clinical practice. For these reasons, we consider that both studies are complementary and might be useful.