2010
DOI: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2010.08.015
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Vitamin D Deficiency in a Renal Transplant Population: Safe Repletion With Moderate Doses of Calcidiol

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…, who also studied de novo transplant recipients irrespective of PTH‐levels, not finding a persistent anti‐proteinuric effect. In another study of 110 renal transplant recipients with vitamin D levels in the lower range, oral calcidiol did not reduce proteinuria . The complexity of what may occur to renal allografts during the early phase after transplant, combined with very modest baseline levels of albuminuria is likely to mask potential anti‐proteinuric effects of VDRA treatment in de novo allograft recipients.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…, who also studied de novo transplant recipients irrespective of PTH‐levels, not finding a persistent anti‐proteinuric effect. In another study of 110 renal transplant recipients with vitamin D levels in the lower range, oral calcidiol did not reduce proteinuria . The complexity of what may occur to renal allografts during the early phase after transplant, combined with very modest baseline levels of albuminuria is likely to mask potential anti‐proteinuric effects of VDRA treatment in de novo allograft recipients.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In previous studies, the prevalence of vitamin D deficiency among KTRs was reported as 38.7% to 61.5% [12,14,20-22]. However, because the definition of vitamin D deficiency varied among studies, the precise prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in KTRs is unclear.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The characteristics of the studies selected for this systematic review and meta-analysis are detailed in Table 1 . The study design was cross-sectional in 27 studies [ 11 , 12 , 14 , 15 , 18 21 , 23 32 , 34 – 37 , 41 45 ] (71.1%) and longitudinal in 11 [ 13 , 16 , 17 , 22 , 33 , 38 40 , 46 48 ] (28.9%). All these articles were published between 2001 and 2021, and most of them were conducted in Europe [ 13 , 14 , 16 , 19 24 , 29 – 31 , 35 , 36 , 38 , 39 , 42 ] (44.7%), although there were also studies from Asia [ 11 , 18 , 25 27 , 34 , 37 , 40 , 43 , 45 , 46 , 48 ] (31.6%), America [ 15 , 17 , 28 , 32 , 33 , 44 , 47 ] (18.4%) and Oceania [ 12 , 41 ] (5.3%).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%