Journals Library

An error occurred retrieving publication content to display, please try again.

Page not found (404)

Sorry - the page you requested could not be found.

Please choose a page from the navigation or try a website search above to find the information you need.

This study found that a full trial of vitamin D was feasible with either open or double blind randomisation.

{{author}}{{author}}{{($index > metadata.AuthorsAndEtalArray.length-1) ? ',' : '.'}}

Christine Rake, Clare Gilham, Laurette Bukasa, Richard Ostler, Michelle Newton, James Peto Wild, Benoit Aigret, Michael Hill, Oliver Gillie, Irwin Nazareth, Peter Sasieni, Adrian Martineau & Julian Peto.

Christine Rake 1, Clare Gilham 1, Laurette Bukasa 1, Richard Ostler 2, Michelle Newton 3, James Peto Wild 1, Benoit Aigret 4, Michael Hill 5, Oliver Gillie 6, Irwin Nazareth 7, Peter Sasieni 4,8, Adrian Martineau 9, Julian Peto 1,*

1 Department of Non-communicable Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
2 Computational and Analytical Sciences, Rothamsted Research, Harpenden, UK
3 Department of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
4 Barts Clinical Trials Unit, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
5 Medical Research Council Population Health Research Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
6 Health Research Forum, London, UK
7 Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK
8 King’s Clinical Trials Unit, King’s College London, London, UK
9 Centre for Primary Care and Public Health, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
* Corresponding author Email:

Funding: {{metadata.Funding}}

{{metadata.Journal}} Volume: {{metadata.Volume}}, Issue: {{metadata.Issue}}, Published in {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'MMMM yyyy'}}{{metadata.DOI}}

Citation:{{author}}{{ (($index < metadata.AuthorsArray.length-1) && ($index <=6)) ? ', ' : '' }}{{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length <= 6) ? '.' : '' }} {{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length > 6) ? 'et al. ' : ''}}. {{metadata.JournalShortName}} {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'yyyy'}};{{metadata.Volume}}({{metadata.Issue}})

Crossmark status check

Report Content

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

If you would like to receive a notification when this project publishes in the NIHR Journals Library, please submit your email address below.

Responses to this report

No responses have been published.


If you would like to submit a response to this publication, please do so using the form below:

Comments submitted to the NIHR Journals Library are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our readers to debate issues raised in research reports published in the Journals Library. We aim to post within 14 working days all responses that contribute substantially to the topic investigated, as determined by the Editors.  Non-relevant comments will be deleted.

Your name and affiliations will be published with your comment.

Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. The Editors may add, remove, or edit comments at their absolute discretion.

By submitting your response, you are stating that you agree to the terms & conditions

An error has occurred in processing the XML document