Dose–response effects of vitamin D supplementation on vitamin D status, glycosylated hemoglobin and total cholesterol in patients with diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The impact of vitamin D levels on glycemic control and lipid metabolism in diabetic patients has received widespread attention. However, currently, there was no unified standard for vitamin D supplementation dosages, with significant variations among guideline recommendations. For instance, the 2022 ESPEN Guidelines recommended a daily supplementation of 1,500–5,000 International Units (IU) for patients at risk of vitamin D deficiency or who repeatedly experience vitamin D deficiency; however, guidelines from Italy suggested a daily supplement dose of 800–1,000 IU for patients with vitamin D deficiency. In this study, we searched the PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI, and Wanfang databases from their inception to 31 May 2024 for literature. The effects of different supplementation levels on vitamin D levels, glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels and total cholesterol (TC) levels were analyzed using random-effects and fixed-effects models, respectively, and we applied the Modified Jadad Scale and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) score to evaluate the quality of the RCT studies and retrospective analyses, respectively. We included a total of seven papers involving 468 patients with a follow-up period of 3 to 6 months. The results of the study showed that vitamin D levels were significantly higher in the high-dose group than in the low-dose group at both 3 and 6 months of treatment [mean difference (MD) = −12.48, 95% confidence interval (CI): −15.25 to −9.72 and MD = −28.22, 95% CI (−40.92, −15.72), both p < 0.05], and the effect of prolonged treatment was more significant. HbA1c levels were significantly lower in the high-dose group than in the low-dose group [MD = 0.41, 95% CI (0.14, 0.67), p = 0.003], and TC levels were not significantly different between the two groups [MD = 1.84, 95% CI (−8.07, 0.67), p = 0.72]. Therefore, in patients with diabetes mellitus complicated by vitamin D deficiency, higher-dose supplementation (>4,000 IU/day) might have had potential advantages in increasing vitamin D levels and improving glycemic control. However, further studies were still needed to clarify the long-term safety and risk–benefit ratio of higher-dose supplementation.
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 | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.038 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".