Types of studies

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi‐RCTs evaluating the following:

1. role of vitamin C supplementation for the prevention of pneumonia; and

2. role of vitamin C supplementation as an adjunct to the treatment of pneumonia.

We included studies reported as full text, abstract only, and unpublished data.

Types of participants

We included studies involving:

1. healthy adults and children receiving vitamin C supplementation for the prevention of pneumonia; and

2. adults and children with confirmed pneumonia (as defined by study authors) receiving vitamin C supplementation as an adjunct to the treatment of pneumonia.

We excluded studies involving participants with immune suppression or with a primary diagnosis of meningitis, asthma, sickle cell anaemia, HIV/AIDS, and severe malnutrition. We excluded studies involving children whose births were preterm or whose birthweight was low. We also excluded studies involving participants with ventilator‐associated pneumonia or hospital‐acquired pneumonia.

Types of interventions

We included studies evaluating the impact of vitamin C supplementation via any route (oral or intravenous), frequency, dose, and duration given:

1. to prevent pneumonia compared to control or placebo; or

2. as an adjuvant to other treatment modalities for the treatment of pneumonia, compared to control or placebo.

We included interventional studies where the difference between control and intervention groups was vitamin C supplementation alone. We did not apply any restriction for route of administration, dose, duration, or frequency of vitamin C supplementation. We excluded studies evaluating the impact of food fortified with vitamin C.

Types of outcome measures

We did not consider evaluation of the outcomes listed below as criteria for inclusion in the review.

We included both incidence and prevalence as outcomes in pneumonia prevention because we anticipated that there might be potentially eligible studies that presented prevalence data at individual or population level rather than incidence, due to the unavailability of surveillance system.

Electronic searches

We identified trials from searches of the following databases:

1. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2020, Issue 2) in the Cochrane Library, which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group Trials Register (searched 4 March 2020);

2. MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 4 March 2020);

3. Embase Elsevier (1974 to 4 March 2020);

4. PubMed National Library of Medicine (1946 to 4 March 2020);

5. LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature) BIREME (1982 to 4 March 2020);

6. CINAHL (Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature) EBSCO (1937 to 4 March 2020); and

7. Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics) (1970 to 4 March 2020).

We also conducted searches of the USA National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov (clinicaltrials.gov) (4 March 2020) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/en) (4 March 2020). The detailed search strategy for all databases is shown in Appendix 1.

We did not impose any restrictions on language or publication status.

Searching other resources

We also checked reference lists of primary studies and reviews for additional references. We contacted study authors for information that was missing from the included studies.

Selection of studies

Four review authors (ZAP, ZM, AA, HB) independently screened titles and abstracts of all records identified as a result of the search strategy for potential inclusion in the review. We obtained the full texts of records deemed potentially relevant, and the review authors assessed each full text against the eligibility criteria. Any conflicts or disagreements were resolved through discussion with another review author (JKD). The excluded studies along with the reasons for their exclusion are provided in the Characteristics of excluded studies table. Decisions made during the screening process are recorded in the PRISMA flow diagram (see Figure 1) (Moher 2009).

Figure 1

---

---

PRISMA flow diagram

Data extraction and management

We designed a data extraction form for data collection. Four review authors (ZAP, ZM, AA, HB) extracted the data using the agreed‐upon form. Any discrepancies were resolved through consensus or by consulting another review author (JKD or RAS) if required.

We entered data into Review Manager 5 (Review Manager 2014); a second review author (RAS) checked the data entry for accuracy against the trial report.

Assessment of risk of bias in included studies

Four review authors (ZAP, ZM, AA, HB) independently assessed the risk of bias for each study using the criteria outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2011). We graded each potential source of bias as high, low, or unclear, and provided a quote from the study report together with a justification for our judgement in the 'Risk of bias' table in the Characteristics of included studies. We summarised the 'Risk of bias' judgements across different studies for each of the listed domains. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion, and tables cross‐checked by another review author (RAS). We assessed risk of bias according to the following domains.

1. Random sequence generation.

2. Allocation concealment.

3. Blinding of participants and personnel.

4. Blinding of outcome assessment.

5. Incomplete outcome data.

6. Selective outcome reporting.

7. Other bias.

Whilst assessing the treatment effects, we also considered risk of bias for the studies that contributed to that outcome. We also reported the source of funding to assess for potential bias related to funding.

Measures of treatment effect

We entered outcome data for each study into data tables in Review Manager 5 to calculate treatment effects (Review Manager 2014). We used risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For trials that measured the same outcome but used different units of measurement, we used the standardised mean difference (SMD) to combine results.

We undertook meta‐analyses only where this was meaningful, that is if the treatments, participants, and the underlying clinical question were sufficiently similar for pooling to generate meaningful conclusions.

Unit of analysis issues

We conducted separate meta‐analyses for different study designs and for outcome subcategories. We planned to include cluster‐randomised trials, cross‐over trials, and individually randomised trials in the analyses. None of the included trials were cluster‐randomised or cross‐over trials.

Dealing with missing data

We contacted study authors to obtain missing numerical outcome data where possible (e.g. when a study was identified as abstract only). Where this was not possible, and the missing data were thought to introduce serious bias, we planned to explore the impact of including such studies in the overall assessment of results by a sensitivity analysis.

Assessment of heterogeneity

We assessed heterogeneity amongst studies in two ways: firstly by assessing heterogeneity at face value: heterogeneity in population, interventions, or outcomes; and secondly by using the Chi² test (P ≤ 0.10 was considered to be consistent with statistical heterogeneity) and the I² statistic to assess the presence of statistical heterogeneity (> 50% was considered to be substantial heterogeneity; > 75% was considerable heterogeneity) (Higgins 2011).

Assessment of reporting biases

We planned to assess reporting bias by constructing funnel plots. However, we did not pool more than 10 studies for a given outcome, therefore assessing reporting bias was not possible. For future updates, we plan to create and examine funnel plots to explore possible small‐study and publication biases for outcomes with more than 10 studies.

Data synthesis

We pooled data from studies judged to be clinically homogeneous using Review Manager 5 (Review Manager 2014). We used fixed‐effect meta‐analysis for combining data where it was reasonable to assume that studies were estimating the same underlying treatment effect, that is where trials examined the same intervention, and the trials’ populations and methods were judged to be sufficiently similar. If there was clinical heterogeneity sufficient to expect that the underlying treatment effects differ between trials, or if statistical heterogeneity was detected (I² > 50%), we would use random‐effects meta‐analysis to produce an overall summary. The random‐effects summary was treated as the average of the range of possible treatment effects, and we have discussed the implications of treatment effects differing between trials. If the average treatment effect was not clinically meaningful, we did not combine the trials. We presented the findings narratively where it was not possible to extract and pool data in Review Manager 5 or as an Additional table.

Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity

We planned to carry out the following subgroup analyses by age group:

1. age: children younger than 5 years old; children and adolescents (aged 5 to 18 years); and adults (aged 18 years and over);

2. type of antibiotics used;

3. different doses and duration of vitamin C supplementation (as specified by the study authors);

4. inpatient versus outpatient treatment;

5. settings (community versus institutional settings); and

6. baseline vitamin status (deficient versus sufficient).

We also planned to use the Chi² test to test for subgroup interactions in Review Manager 5 (Review Manager 2014).

Sensitivity analysis

We planned to conduct sensitivity analysis to assess the impact of high risk of bias on the outcome by restricting the meta‐analysis to studies at low risk of bias and assessing if the conclusions were affected.