Nutritional Supplementation for Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder: Protocol for a Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a chronic mental health condition, and standard treatment often results in incomplete symptom relief. Growing evidence suggests that nutritional supplements, including vitamins, minerals, and amino acids, may serve as potential adjunctive treatments for OCD by influencing neurotransmitter regulation and inflammation. OBJECTIVE: Our systematic review aims to assess the comparative efficacy of nutritional supplements on relevant clinical outcomes in individuals with OCD. METHODS: A protocol was developed and registered for this systematic review. Randomized controlled trials assessing the efficacy of nutritional supplementation compared with standard treatments (pharmacological and psychological interventions) will be included. Primary outcomes are changes in cognitive performance, quality of life, and psychiatric symptoms. Secondary outcomes include the presence of comorbidities or multimorbidities (eg, metabolic syndrome). Systematic searches will be conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov from their inception onward. Two independent researchers will screen the citations and full-text studies. The risk of bias and study quality will be evaluated using validated tools, and association measures with 95% CIs will be calculated. Potential sources of heterogeneity will also be analyzed. RESULTS: The search commenced in January 2025. Between June and August 2025, studies were identified and the full texts reviewed. Data extraction is anticipated to be completed in September 2025. The final synthesis is scheduled for December 2025. CONCLUSIONS: We aim to address the gaps in the current treatment paradigm for OCD by evaluating the efficacy of nutritional supplementation as an adjunctive therapy. These findings may provide insights into the potential of these supplements to improve cognitive and psychiatric outcomes. This protocol establishes a foundation for the rigorous synthesis of available evidence, which may inform future clinical practices and support the integration of nutritional strategies in OCD management. TRIAL REGISTRATION: OSF Registries 10.17605/OSF.IO/NZ5MU; https://osf.io/NZ5MU. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/80240.
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 | 0.080 | 0.100 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.018 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.069 | 0.009 |
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".