Influence of Ascorbic Acid Supplementation on Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Observational and Randomized Controlled Trials; A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: There are controversial data regarding the beneficial effects of ascorbic acid (AA) supplementation in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). In this systematic review, we aimed to criticize the current relevant data from both observational and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: All observational and RCTs conducted to assess anti-hyperglycemic effects of AA in diabetics, published before January 2013, were included. To obtain all related studies Google Scholar, PubMed, Scopus, IranMedex, and Magiran web databases were searched. Exclusion criteria were animal studies, and studies conducted in Type 1 DM, children or pregnant women. Main outcome measures were fasting blood sugar (FBS), and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c). According to degree of heterogeneity, fixed or random effect models were employed. Meta-analyses were done using Stats Direct software, version 3.0.97. The quality of included articles and publication bias were also assessed. RESULTS: We selected 38 articles; 26 observational studies and 12 RCTs. Due to severe methodological heterogeneity in all observational studies and some of RCTs, we could pool data from only 5 RCTs in a meta-analysis. Single intake of AA versus placebo showed a significant effect on FBS; with the standardized mean difference (SMD): -20.59, 95% confidence intervals (95% CI): -40.77 to -0.4 (p= 0.04), but non-significant effect on HbA1c; SMD: -0.46, 95% CI: -1.75 to 0.84 (p= 0.4). Effect of other antioxidants with/without AA supplementation on FBSwere nonsignificant; SMD: -4.26 (p= 0.8), and SMD: -12.04 (p= 0.3), respectively. Also, their effect on HbA1c was non-significant; SMD: 0.53 (p= 0.11), and SMD: 0.28 (p= 0.34), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our study supports the positive effect of AA in reduction of FBS in diabetics, however, due to insufficient evidence ragarding long term safety of AA supplementation and limited number of RCTs, the long term use of this vitamin for its anti-diabetic properties cannot be strongly recommended.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.035 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.028 | 0.044 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".