Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a disease primarily affecting the respiratory tract, however due to the nature of the pathogenesis it is able to affect the whole body. So far, no causative treatment has been found and the main strategy when dealing with COVID-19 relies on widespread vaccination programs and symptomatic treatment. Vitamin D due to its ability to modulate the immunological system has been proposed as a factor playing role in the organism response to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Therefore, we decided to perform this meta-analysis which aimed to establish a connection between vitamin D status and COVID-19 infection. Methods: Study was designed as a systematic review and meta-analysis. PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Collaboration Databases and Scopus electronic databases were searched for relevant studies from database inception to May 10th, 2021. Mean differences (MDs) with their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Results: Thirteen studies providing data for 14,485 participants met the inclusion criteria. Mean vitamin D levels in SARS-CoV-2 negative patients was 17.7 ± 6.9 ng/mL compared to SARS-CoV-2 positive patients 14.1 ± 8.2 ng/mL (MD = 3.93; 95% CI 2.84–5.02; I2 = 99%; p < 0.001). Conclusions: Low serum vitamin D levels are statistically significantly associated with the risk of COVID-19 infection. Supplementation of vitamin D especially in the deficiency risk groups is indicated. Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a disease primarily affecting the respiratory tract, however due to the nature of the pathogenesis it is able to affect the whole body. So far, no causative treatment has been found and the main strategy when dealing with COVID-19 relies on widespread vaccination programs and symptomatic treatment. Vitamin D due to its ability to modulate the immunological system has been proposed as a factor playing role in the organism response to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Therefore, we decided to perform this meta-analysis which aimed to establish a connection between vitamin D status and COVID-19 infection. Methods: Study was designed as a systematic review and meta-analysis. PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Collaboration Databases and Scopus electronic databases were searched for relevant studies from database inception to May 10th, 2021. Mean differences (MDs) with their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Results: Thirteen studies providing data for 14,485 participants met the inclusion criteria. Mean vitamin D levels in SARS-CoV-2 negative patients was 17.7 ± 6.9 ng/mL compared to SARS-CoV-2 positive patients 14.1 ± 8.2 ng/mL (MD = 3.93; 95% CI 2.84–5.02; I2 = 99%; p < 0.001). Conclusions: Low serum vitamin D levels are statistically significantly associated with the risk of COVID-19 infection. Supplementation of vitamin D especially in the deficiency risk groups is indicated.

Background: Vitamin D is a likely candidate for treatment as its immune modulating characteristics have effects on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. It was sought herein, to summarize the studies published to date regarding the vitamin D supplementation to treat severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) positive patients. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. The primary outcome were 14-day and in-hospital mortality reported as an odds ratio (OR) with the associated 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: Eight articles were included in the review with a combined total of 2,322 individual patients, 786 in the vitamin D supplementation group and 1,536 in the control group. The use of vitamin D compared to the group without vitamin D supplementation was associated with a lower 14-day mortality (18.8% vs. 31.3%, respectively; OR = 0.51; 95% CI: 0.12–2.19; p = 0.36), a lower in-hospital mortality (5.6% vs. 16.1%; OR = 0.56; 95% CI: 0.23–1.37; I² = 74%; p = 0.20), the rarer intensive care unit admission (6.4% vs. 23.4%; OR = 0.19; 95% CI: 0.06–0.54; I² = 77%; p = 0.002) as well as rarer mechanical ventilation (6.5% vs. 18.9%; OR = 0.36; 95% CI: 0.16–0.80; I² = 0.48; p = 0.01). Conclusions: Vitamin D supplementation in SARS-CoV-2 positive patients has the potential to positively impact patients with both mild and severe symptoms. As several high-quality randomized control studies have demonstrated a benefit in hospital mortality, vitamin D should be considered a supplemental therapy of strong interest. Should vitamin D prove to reduce hospitalization rates and symptoms outside of the hospital setting, the cost and benefit to global pandemic mitigation efforts would be substantial. Background: Vitamin D is a likely candidate for treatment as its immune modulating characteristics have effects on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. It was sought herein, to summarize the studies published to date regarding the vitamin D supplementation to treat severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) positive patients. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. The primary outcome were 14-day and in-hospital mortality reported as an odds ratio (OR) with the associated 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: Eight articles were included in the review with a combined total of 2,322 individual patients, 786 in the vitamin D supplementation group and 1,536 in the control group. The use of vitamin D compared to the group without vitamin D supplementation was associated with a lower 14-day mortality (18.8% vs. 31.3%, respectively; OR = 0.51; 95% CI: 0.12–2.19; p = 0.36), a lower in-hospital mortality (5.6% vs. 16.1%; OR = 0.56; 95% CI: 0.23–1.37; I² = 74%; p = 0.20), the rarer intensive care unit admission (6.4% vs. 23.4%; OR = 0.19; 95% CI: 0.06–0.54; I² = 77%; p = 0.002) as well as rarer mechanical ventilation (6.5% vs. 18.9%; OR = 0.36; 95% CI: 0.16–0.80; I² = 0.48; p = 0.01). Conclusions: Vitamin D supplementation in SARS-CoV-2 positive patients has the potential to positively impact patients with both mild and severe symptoms. As several high-quality randomized control studies have demonstrated a benefit in hospital mortality, vitamin D should be considered a supplemental therapy of strong interest. Should vitamin D prove to reduce hospitalization rates and symptoms outside of the hospital setting, the cost and benefit to global pandemic mitigation efforts would be substantial.

This study purposed to evaluate preoperative two tumor markers, namely, carcinoembryonic antigen and carbohydrate antigen (CA)19-9, in colorectal cancer for anatomotopographic location with disease stage and to assess their utility for diagnostic staging purposes.

Background: This paper describes a unique case—the first case of multiple fractures of the thoracic vertebrae caused by a low-voltage electric shock. Case presentation: A 22-year-old male patient was diagnosed with compression fractures of Th2–Th6 caused by a muscle spasm resulting from an electric shock. The patient was treated conservatively using a cervico-thoracic support corset. After rehabilitation, the patient has regained his physiological movement of the spine without any back pain. Conclusions: Albeit vertebral fractures caused by electric shock injury are extremely rare, clinicians should always keep in mind this diagnosis, especially when clinical symptoms such as pain and limitation of movement are present.