Effect of vitamin D on inflammatory and clinical outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and dose–response meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Rheumatoid arthritis is a chronic inflammatory disease that causes synovitis. Vitamin D deficiency is common in rheumatoid arthritis. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated whether vitamin D supplementation affects the inflammatory and clinical outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis on the basis of randomized clinical trials. DATA SOURCES: A literature search was performed in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Google Scholar for articles published until May 2022. DATA EXTRACTION: The studies were selected according to PRISMA guidelines, and the risk of bias was assessed for randomized controlled trials. DATA ANALYSIS: A random effects model was used to conduct a meta-analysis, and heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. Of 464 records, 11 studies were included from 3049 patients. Conclusion: Vitamin D supplementation did not significantly reduce C-reactive protein (CRP), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), disease activity score in 28 joints (DAS28), or the health assessment questionnaire score; however, the response to supplementation was highly heterogeneous. The pooled analysis showed that vitamin D significantly reduced the pain-visual analogue scale (VAS) weighted mean difference (WMD = -1.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] [-2.34, -27], P = .01), DAS28-CRP (WMD = -.58, 95% CI [-.86, -.31], P < .0001), and DAS28-ESR (WMD = -.58, 95% CI [-.86, -.31], P = .0001). Subgroup analysis for vitamin D doses (>100 µg per day versus <100 µg per day) showed that the higher doses had a more significant effect on CRP than the lower doses (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference between the effect of 2 vitamin D doses on ESR and DAS28. To minimize the high heterogeneity among studies in this meta-analysis, other confounding factors such as baseline vitamin D, age, dietary vitamin D, time of year, sun exposure, drug interaction, effect dosage, and power of study should be examined.
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 | 0.025 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.028 | 0.056 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| 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".