Table 2 

Statistical analysis of Study 2 scores of wellbeing (Winter 2002–2003). 

Intenttotreat analysis 
Perprotocol analysis 




Dose of Vitamin D 
N 
Age 
N 

mcg/day (IU/day) 
Total in group, (% female) 
yr (SD) 
25(OH)D nmol/L (SD) 
December 2002 Score (out of 16) 
February 2003 Score (out of 16) 
Total in group, (% female) 
December 2002 Score (out of 16) 
February 2003 Score (out of 16) 



CONTINUERS FROM STUDY 1 (on Vit D since previous year) 

15 (600) 
22 (77%) 
54 (14) 
69 (26) 
7.2 (4.5) 
4.4 (3.4) 
15 (73%) 
6.9 (4.8) 
4.4 (3.4) b 

100 (4000) 
24 (84%) 
56 (9) 
126 (45) a 
4.4 (4.4) a 
4.0 (3.7) 
16 (88%) 
4.6 (4.6) 
4.0 (3.7) 

NEW PATIENTS FOR STUDY 2 

15 (600) 
33 (68%) 
48 (13) 
39 (9) 
8.0 (5.2) 
5.4 (4.3) 
25 (64%) 
8.7 (5.5) 
5.4 (4.3) b 

100 (4000) 
33 (85%) 
50 (14) 
39 (9) 
8.4 (5.5) 
3.9 (3.6) c 
26 (89%) 
8.1 (5.6) 
3.9 (3.6) bc 



a Different from 15 mcg (600 IU)/day group (the value above the mean marked by this footnote) by ttest p < 0.04; lower (better) than in the 600 IU/day group by MannWhitney p = 0.039. b Paired ttest, December score vs February Score (the value to the left of the mean marked by this footnote) p < 0.012; also significant by the nonparametric equivalent to paired ttest, the Wilcoxan test, p < 0.012. c For New patients, low vs high dose group, 2tail unpaired t test p = 0.188; MannWhitney p = 0.183; i.e. not significantly different. 

Vieth et al. Nutrition Journal 2004 3:8 doi:10.1186/1475289138 