Evidence Hub

Overall and Progression-Free Survival of Patients With Malignant Neoplasm Following Intravenous Vitamin C: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Jin-Long Qu, Mingtao Yao, Shijie Yu, Yi Wang, Shuai Lu, Bing Wang, Jia He, Shiwan Wang et al.

International journal for vitamin and nutrition research. Internationale Zeitschrift fur Vitamin- und Ernahrungsforschung. Journal international de vitaminologie et de nutrition, 2025

2,722 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to determine whether administering intravenous vitamin C in patients with malignant neoplasm is associated with increased survival outcomes compared to no intravenous vitamin C administration.

METHODS

The primary search was conducted using MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases from inception to October 13, 2024. Results were collected from randomized clinical trials and cohort studies that compared intravenous vitamin C and blank controls or placebo in patients with malignant neoplasm. Two reviewers independently assessed the data extraction process and the risk of bias, while the certainty of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. A frequentist framework was used as the primary analysis approach.

RESULTS

A total of 8 studies with 2722 adult participants were included. The vitamin C dose ranged from 2.5 g/d to 1.5 g/kg of body weight per day, with the treatment duration ranging from 9 days to 1 year. The primary outcome was overall survival, with progression-free survival as a secondary measure. Intravenous vitamin C was associated with a significantly longer median overall survival (pooled estimated median survival ratio: 1.83; 95% confidence interval: 1.40-2.40; p < 0.001; moderate certainty), and a trend towards improved progression-free survival (pooled estimated median survival ratio: 1.80; 95% confidence…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 2,722 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free