Responses

Effect of micronutrient supplements on influenza and other respiratory tract infections among adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses [https://authors.bmj.com/after-submitting/rapid-responses/].
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses [https://www.bmj.com/company/journals-terms-and-conditions-for-rapid-responses/] and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice [https://www.bmj.com/company/your-privacy/].
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Questionable reliability of the zinc results
    • Jennifer Hunter, Integrative Medicine and General Practitioner NICM Health Research Institute, Western Sydney University
    • Other Contributors:
      • Stephen Leeder, Respiratory Physician, Public Health and Community Medicine
      • Susan Arentz, Naturopath

    To the editor and authors,

    We have several concerns about the zinc results in this systematic review

    1. Weismann et al. 1990 RCT evaluates zinc for treating, not preventing infections, yet is included in the prevention meta-analyses (Figure-6).

    2. Farr et al. 1987 reports post-exposure prophylactic and treatment results for two RCTs. Which RCT was used? Why was the other ignored? Supp-Table-5 reports an incorrect sample size and MD rather than RR. The validity of combining pre- and postexposure prophylactic trials is questionable and at the very least, should be discussed.

    3. Turner et al. 2000 reports two RCTs, both had 4 arms. Why was one RCT and two of the three zinc arms ignored? If these arms were included, an explanation for how the means (SDs) were combined is missing.

    4. Table 3 lacks transparency as the studies used in each subgroup are not cited and often it is unclear what data was used. For example, none of the five RCTs included in the zinc prevention meta-analysis reported infection rates for males and females, yet this is reported.

    5. The authors claim there was no evidence of a dose response for zinc used for treatment. Only two RCTs evaluated a dose ≤13.3mg/day. Both used intranasal sprays/gels. All other treatment studies evaluated lozenges. Comparing doses for different administration routes is clinically meaningless. All this analysis tells us is there is no difference between intranasal and sublingual adminis...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.