Vitamin D status and supplementation before and after Bariatric Surgery: Recommendations based on a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bariatric surgery is associated with a postoperative reduction of 25(OH) vitamin D levels (25(OH)D) and with skeletal complications. Currently, guidelines for 25(OH)D assessment and vitamin D supplementation in bariatric patients, pre- and post-surgery, are still lacking. The aim of this work is to analyse systematically the published experience on 25(OH)D status and vitamin D supplementation, pre- and post-surgery, and to propose, on this basis, recommendations for management. Preoperatively, 18 studies including 2,869 patients were evaluated. Prevalence of vitamin D insufficiency as defined by 25(OH)D < 30 ng/mL (75 nmol/L) was 85%, whereas when defined by 25(OH)D < 20 ng/mL (50 nmol/L) was 57%. The median preoperative 25(OH)D level was 19.75 ng/mL. After surgery, 39 studies including 5,296 patients were analysed and among those undergoing either malabsorptive or restrictive procedures, a lower rate of vitamin D insufficiency and higher 25(OH)D levels postoperatively were observed in patients treated with high-dose oral vitamin D supplementation, defined as ≥ 2,000 IU/daily (mostly D3-formulation), compared with low-doses (< 2,000 IU/daily). Our recommendations based on this systematic review and meta-analysis should help clinical practice in the assessment and management of vitamin D status before and after bariatric surgery. Assessment of vitamin D should be performed pre- and postoperatively in all patients undergoing bariatric surgery. Regardless of the type of procedure, high-dose supplementation is recommended in patients after bariatric surgery.
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 | 0.018 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.023 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 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".