Effectiveness of vitamin D supplementation in managing urinary incontinence and overactive bladder: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: urinary incontinence (UI) and overactive bladder (OAB) are common lower urinary tract symptoms that significantly impact quality of life. Conventional pharmacologic treatments are often associated with side effects and limited efficacy, highlighting the need for alternative therapies. Vitamin D, known for its role in muscle function and its presence in the receptors of the bladder and prostate, has been proposed as a potential non-invasive intervention. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of vitamin D supplementation in the management of UI and OAB. METHODS: a systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Twelve studies (six RCTs and six cohort studies) were included. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Statistical analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5.4. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) and risk ratios (RRs) were used to compare outcomes. A meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model, which was applied due to heterogeneity, as assessed by the I² statistic. Sensitivity analysis was performed using the leave-one-out method. RESULTS: no significant difference was found between the vitamin D and control groups in improving UI scales (SMD = -1.04; 95% CI: -2.35 to 0.27, p=0.12) with an I² of 94%. There were no significant effects on the risk of OAB (RR = 1.03, p=0.16) or UI (RR = 0.88, p=0.59), nor on UI improvement or worsening. The sensitivity analysis revealed that excluding one unusual study resulted in more consistent results and confirmed similar patterns. CONCLUSIONS: no substantial advantage of vitamin D was observed in UI or OAB patients compared to the control groups.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".