MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388146225 · doi:10.2196/40857

Clinical Efficacy of Nutritional Supplements in Atopic Dermatitis: Systematic Review

2023· review· en· W4388146225 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Isaac Weber, Emily Woolhiser, Noah Keime, Margaret Wasvary, Madeline Adelman, Torunn E Sivesind, Robert P. Dellavalle

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Dermatology · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatology and Skin Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institutes of HealthPfizer
KeywordsMedicineAtopic dermatitisSynbioticsMicronutrientTraditional medicineProbioticDermatology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Atopic dermatitis (AD), also known as eczema, is a chronic inflammatory skin condition that presents with symptoms of intense pruritus, dryness, and erythema. Dissatisfaction with first-line therapies for AD, the desire to avoid steroids, and the extreme cost of effective biologics have created a demand for alternative treatment options such as oral vitamins and nutritional supplements. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this review was to assess the effectiveness of oral nutritional supplements, pre- and probiotics, and vitamin deficiencies and supplements on AD symptomology and clinical course. METHODS: We searched Scopus, PubMed, and MEDLINE (Ovid interface) for English-language articles published between 1993 and 2023. The final search was conducted on June 22, 2023. The search terms comprised the following: "(Atopic Dermatitis or Atopic Eczema) AND (supplement OR vitamin OR mineral OR micronutrients OR Fish Oil OR Omega Fatty Acid OR Probiotics OR Prebiotics OR apple cider vinegar OR collagen OR herbal OR fiber)." RESULTS: A total of 18 studies-3 (17%) evaluating vitamins, 4 (22%) evaluating herbal medicine compounds, 2 (11%) evaluating single-ingredient nutritional supplements, and 9 (50%) evaluating pre- and probiotics-involving 881 patients were included in this review. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, there is weak evidence to support any one nutritional supplement intervention for the alleviation of AD symptoms. Multiple trials (4/18, 22%) showed promise for supplements such as Zemaphyte, kefir, and freeze-dried whey with Cuscuta campestris Yuncker extract. The most evidence was found on the effectiveness of probiotics on the clinical course of AD. Lactiplantibacillus plantarum, Ligilactobacillus salivarius, and Lactobacillus acidophilus specifically showed evidence of efficacy and safety across multiple studies (6/18, 33%). However, larger, more extensive randomized controlled trials are needed to determine the true effectiveness of these supplements on the broader population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42023470596; https://tinyurl.com/4a9477u7.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.007
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.455
Teacher spread0.369 · 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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR DermatologySame topicDermatology and Skin DiseasesFrench-language works237,207