ReviewCureus2024
Evaluating the Effect of Vitamin D Supplementation on Type 2 Diabetes Risk: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although observational studies have linked vitamin D deficiency to diabetes, it is unknown if taking vitamin D supplements can reduce the chance of developing type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The purpose of this systematic review is to determine whether vitamin D supplementation lowers the risk of type 2 diabetes. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used to search for studies based on pre-established inclusion and exclusion criteria. Five different databases (Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library) were used to search for relevant studies. These databases contained 1,916 relevant research papers that were examined for duplication using the EndNote software. After a careful text analysis, only 13 of these articles were found to be pertinent. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the risk of bias in each included study. Ten of the 13 trials examined how vitamin D supplementation affected the homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) of the patients. Patients using vitamin D supplements saw a drop in their HOMA-IR in six of these RCTs but an increase in four of them. The vitamin D group had a lower HOMA-IR than the placebo cohort in seven of the 10 trials that examined HOMA-IR. Despite the impact on insulin resistance, there is not enough data to conclude that vitamin D supplement significantly lowers the incidence of T2DM. To impact clinical guidelines about supplementation with vitamin D among people at risk of type 2 diabetes, more studies in this area might be beneficial.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.