MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2267357097 · doi:10.1016/j.jsbmb.2016.02.008

Vitamin D supplementation during pregnancy: Updated meta-analysis on maternal outcomes

2016· review· en· W2267357097 on OpenAlexaff
Cristina Palacios, Luz Maria De‐Regil, L Lombardo, Juan Pablo Peña‐Rosas

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVitamin D Research Studies
Canadian institutionsNutrition International
FundersWorld Health OrganizationBill and Melinda Gates Foundation
KeywordsMedicineGestational diabetesPregnancyVitamin D and neurologyObstetricsPreeclampsiaRandomized controlled trialClinical trialChildbirthGestational ageRelative riskGestational hypertensionAdverse effectMeta-analysisEclampsiaGestationInternal medicineConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Vitamin D deficiency is highly prevalent during pregnancy. It has been suggested that vitamin D supplementation during pregnancy may reduce the risk of adverse gestational outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To update a previous meta-analysis on the effects of oral vitamin D supplementation (alone or in combination with other vitamins and minerals) during pregnancy on maternal 25(OH)D levels and risk of developing pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes, preterm birth, impaired glucose tolerance, caesarean section, gestational hypertension and other adverse conditions. METHODS: We searched for randomized and quasi-randomized trials through the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations, and direct communications with relevant organizations. Assessments of inclusion criteria, extraction of data from included studies, and risk of bias' assessments of the included studies were done independently by two review authors. RESULTS: We included 15 trials, excluded 27 trials and 23 trials are still ongoing/unpublished. Data from seven trials with 868 women suggest that pregnant women supplemented with vitamin D had significantly higher 25(OH)D levels compared to controls (mean difference: 54.7nmol/L; 95% CI 36.6, 72.9). Two trials found a lower risk of preeclampsia (8.9% versus 15.5%; average risk ratio 0.52; 95% CI 0.25, 1.05) and two other trials found no difference in the risk of gestational diabetes with vitamin D supplementation. Also, three trials found that supplementation with vitamin D plus calcium reduced the risk of pre-eclampsia (5% versus 9%; average risk ratio 0.51; 95% CI 0.32, 0.80). CONCLUSION: Supplementing pregnant women with vitamin D led to significantly higher levels of 25(OH)D at term compared to placebo/control but results were inconsistent. Vitamin D supplementation, with or without calcium, may be related to lower risk of preeclampsia but more studies are needed to confirm this.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.631

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.340 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations150
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular BiologySame topicVitamin D Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207