MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389090841 · doi:10.1177/20543581231212039

Are There Any Pleiotropic Benefits of Vitamin D in Patients With Diabetic Kidney Disease? A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

2023· review· en· W4389090841 on OpenAlexaff
Jaya Sharma, Sono Khan, Tristin E. Wilson, Nathan G. Pilkey, Sanjana Kapuria, Angélique Roy, Michael A. Adams, Rachel M. Holden

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVitamin D Research Studies
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVitamin D and neurologyRandomized controlled trialInternal medicineCalcifediolKidney diseaseCholecalciferolPlaceboType 2 diabetesErgocalciferolSystematic reviewvitamin D deficiencyDiabetes mellitusMEDLINEEndocrinologyPathologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Type 2 diabetes (T2D) and kidney disease are risk factors for vitamin D deficiency. Native forms of vitamin D have a lower risk of hypercalcemia than calcitriol, the active hormone. The enzyme responsible for activating native vitamin D is now known to be expressed throughout the body; therefore, native vitamin D may have clinically relevant effects in many body systems. Objective: The objective of this systematic review was to examine the effect of native vitamin D supplementation on clinical outcomes and surrogate laboratory measures in patients with T2D and diabetic kidney disease (DKD). Design: Systematic review. Setting: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in any country. Patients: Adults with T2D and DKD receiving supplementation with any form of native vitamin D (eg, ergocalciferol, cholecalciferol, calcifediol). Measurements: Clinical outcomes and surrogate clinical and laboratory measures reported in each of the trials were included in this review. Methods: The following databases were searched from inception to January 31, 2023: Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, and medRxiv. Only RCTs examining supplementation with a native vitamin D form with a control or placebo comparison group were included. We excluded studies reporting only vitamin D status or mineral metabolism parameters, without any other outcomes of clinical relevance or surrogate laboratory measures. Study quality was evaluated using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB2). Results were synthesized in summary tables for each type of outcome with the P values from the original studies displayed. Results: Nine publications were included, corresponding to 5 separate RCTs (377 participants total). Mean age ranged from 40 to 63. All trials administered vitamin D 3 . Intervention groups experienced improvements in vitamin D status and a reduction in proteinuria in 4 of the 5 included RCTs. There was a decrease in low-density lipoprotein and total cholesterol in the 2 trials in which they were measured. Improvements in bone mass, flow-mediated dilation, and inflammation were also reported, but each was only measured in 1 RCT. Effects on glucose metabolism, high-density lipoprotein, triglycerides, blood pressure, oxidative stress, and kidney function were mixed. No serious adverse effects were reported. Limitations: Limitations include the small number of RCTs and lack of information on the use of drugs that affect measured outcomes (eg, proteinuria-lowering renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors and lipid-lowering medication) in most studies. Our study is also limited by the absence of a prestudy protocol and registration. Conclusions: Native vitamin D is a safe treatment that improves vitamin D status in patients with DKD. Vitamin D may modify proteinuria and lipid metabolism in DKD, but further well-designed trials that include well-established treatments are necessary. Overall, there is limited evidence for beneficial pleiotropic effects of vitamin D in patients with DKD.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.080
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.080
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.015
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.343
Teacher spread0.299 · 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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Kidney Health and DiseaseSame topicVitamin D Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207