Chronic urticaria and vitamin D supplementations: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic urticaria (CU), especially chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU), is a long-term inflammatory skin condition marked by wheals and/or angioedema lasting over six weeks. Emerging evidence suggests a link between vitamin D deficiency and immune dysregulation associated with CU. Given vitamin D's immunomodulatory and anti-inflammatory effects, this review explores the therapeutic potential of vitamin D supplementation in CU management. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines Electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar) were searched using relevant keywords. Studies included were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), case-control, and observational studies assessing serum vitamin D levels or supplementation in patients with CU. Data extraction and bias assessment were independently conducted using standardized tools: the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Eleven studies involving 1,491 participants were included. Most studies demonstrated significantly lower serum 25(OH)D levels in patients with CU compared to healthy controls. Vitamin D supplementation, particularly in individuals with a deficiency, was associated with reductions in urticaria activity scores, symptom severity, and improved quality of life. High-dose regimens (e.g., 4,000 IU/day or 60,000 IU/week) appeared more effective. However, results varied due to heterogeneity in study design, dosage, and patient characteristics. CONCLUSION: Vitamin D supplementation may serve as a safe, accessible adjunct to standard CU treatment, particularly for those with confirmed deficiency. While evidence suggests potential benefits, further high-quality RCTs are needed to establish causality, optimal dosing, and long-term efficacy.
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 | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".