Association between vitamin D deficiency and benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV) incidence and recurrence: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to determine the relationship between serum vitamin D level and the risk of developing benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV) incidence and recurrence in countries in the Northern Hemisphere. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science databases were searched for studies published between January 2000 and February 2023. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Participants located in the Northern Hemisphere aged 18 or over with at least one episode of BPPV, serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels measured and reported, no comorbidities or history of vitamin D supplementation. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data extraction and synthesis were performed by a single reviewer and checked by a second reviewer. Inclusion and exclusion criteria and risk of bias were assessed by two independent reviewers using the Newcastle Ottawa Tool for Cohort studies and Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Nonrandomised Studies checklist for case-control studies. Meta-analysis was conducted using random effects models. Standard mean difference with a 95% CI was used to measure the relationship between vitamin D level and BPPV. RESULTS: The 35 articles identified by the literature search reported data of 9843 individuals. 19 studies (7387 individuals) were included in the BPPV incidence meta-analysis while 7 studies (622 individuals) were included in the BPPV recurrence meta-analysis. Lower serum vitamin D levels were found in BPPV incidence compared with controls, but the relationship between vitamin D levels in recurrent BPPV compared with non-recurrent disease remained uncertain. CONCLUSION: Results of this systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated a negative correlation between serum vitamin D and BPPV incidence, while any relationship between serum vitamin D and BPPV recurrence remained uncertain. Risk of bias analysis revealed evidence of variable quality. There were insufficient data available to evaluate seasonal relationships between serum vitamin D and BPPV. Given the potential for this as a confounding factor, future research should aim to investigate this further. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021271840.
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 | 0.013 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.042 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".