MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3206846751 · doi:10.3390/nu13103662

Vitamin D Supplementation and Mental Health in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases and Irritable Bowel Syndrome Patients: A Systematic Review

2021· review· en· W3206846751 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dominika Głąbska, Aleksandra Kołota, Katarzyna Lachowicz, Dominika Skolmowska, Małgorzata Stachoń, Dominika Guzek

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrients · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVitamin D Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIrritable bowel syndromeMedicineInflammatory Bowel DiseasesSystematic reviewMental healthMEDLINEQuality of life (healthcare)Intervention (counseling)Vitamin D and neurologyAlternative medicineInternal medicinePsychiatryUlcerative colitisDiseasePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs) and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) are associated with decreased quality of life and mental health problems. Among various approaches to supportive therapy that aims to improve mental health in affected individuals, vitamin D supplementation is considered to be an effective method which may also be beneficial in alleviating the symptoms during the course of IBDs and IBS. The aim of the present study was to conduct a systematic review of the literature presenting the data regarding the influence of vitamin D supplementation on mental health in adults with inflammatory and functional bowel diseases, including IBDs and IBS. This study was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) database (Registration number CRD42020155779). A systematic search of the PubMed and Web of Science databases was performed, and the intervention studies published until September 2021 were included. The human studies eligible to be included in the review should have described any intervention involving vitamin D as a supplement in a group of adult patients suffering from IBDs and/or IBS and should have assessed any component of mental health, but studies presenting the effects of combined supplementation of multiple nutrients were excluded. After eliminating the duplicates, a total of 8514 records were screened and assessed independently by two researchers. Further evaluation was carried out on the basis of title, abstract, and full text. Finally, 10 studies (four for IBDs and six for IBS) were selected for the current systematic review, and their quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). The studies analyzed the influence of various doses of vitamin D on bowel diseases, compared the results of vitamin D supplementation with placebo, or administered specific doses of vitamin D to obtain the required level in the blood. Supplementation was performed for at least 6 weeks. The analyzed mental health outcomes mainly included disease-specific quality of life/quality of life, anxiety, and depression. The majority of studies (including high-quality ones) confirmed the positive effect of vitamin D supplementation on the mental health of IBD and IBS patients, which was proven by all research works evaluating anxiety and depression and by the majority of research works evaluating quality of life. Although the studies followed different dosage regimens and supplementation protocols, the positive influence of vitamin D on mental health was found to be consistent. The number of studies on patients suffering from ulcerative colitis and the availability of trials randomized against the placebo group was low in the current review, which is considered to be a limitation of the present study and could also reflect the final outcome of the analysis. The conducted systematic review established the positive effect of vitamin D supplementation on the mental health of IBD and IBS patients, but this result requires further investigation, particularly in relation to other mental health outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.008
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.325 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
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

Citations19
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNutrientsSame topicVitamin D Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207