The effect of Vitamin D supplementation on hormonal and glycaemic profile of patients with PCOS: A meta-analysis of randomised trials

Abstract

There is no evidence to support that vitamin D supplementation significantly benefits PCOS patients. However, given the relatively small number of enrolled patients further studies are needed to elucidate this field.

Pharmacological and surgical treatment of nonreproductive outcomes in polycystic ovary syndrome: An overview of systematic reviews

“…Seven reviews evaluated vitamin D (Appendix S3, found in the Supporting Information) either as monotherapy vs placebo or metformin, as combination therapy with metformin vs metformin or comparing the effects of before and after vitamin D. Only one review had a high rating while the majority of the reviews (n = 5) were of moderate quality, and one review was of low quality. A total of 75 trials and 5701 participants women with PCOS were involved.…”

“…Five reviews assessed endocrine outcomes with 2 reviews reporting benefits DHEAS (n = 1 comparing vitamin D vs placebo and vitamin D with metformin vs metformin) or testosterone (n = 1 comparing vitamin D vs placebo) . Metabolic outcomes were assessed by 6 reviews with 4 reviews reported benefits as reductions in HOMA‐IR (n = 1 comparing vitamin D vs placebo or combination therapy vs metformin), total cholesterol (n = 1 comparing vitamin D vs placebo) or triglycerides (n = 2 comparing before and after vitamin D) . One review reported significant improvements in blood pressure for vitamin D vs placebo .…”

“…46 Thirteen reviews explicitly included randomized control trials (RCTs) only [29][30][31][32]34,36,38,42,43,46,53,57,59 ; 5 reviews included RCTs and phase-1 data of cross-over trials 39,41,44,45,52 ; 2 reviews included RCTs and prospective trials 50,56 ; 2 reviews included RCTs and observational studies 49,58 ; 1 review included RCTs, comparative studies and case series with >5 patients 55 ; 2 reviews included all clinical trials 40,54 ; 3 reviews included all study types 35,48,51 ; and 3 reviews did not state an inclusion criteria for the study type. 33,37,47 Fifteen reviews did not set a language restriction in their literature search 30,31,[39][40][41][43][44][45][46]49,50,52,[56][57][58] ; 11 reviews restricted their search to English publications only…”

“…1 review restricted its language to English and Persian 54 ; 1 review restricted its language to English and Chinese 33 ; and 3 reviews did not state if any language restriction was applied. 29,47,48 Twelve reviews reported following a guideline on good practice in conducting systematic reviews 30,31,35,39,41,[44][45][46][47]53,57,58 ; 25 reviews included metaanalyses [29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][49][50][51][52][53][55][56][57] ; and 18 reviews did not provide a clear statement as to the overall quality assessment of the included articles. 31,33,34,36,37,[41][42][43]…”

“…Eighteen (58%) of the systematic reviews had less than 10 studies included in total. [29][30][31][32]36,[38][39][40][41][42]44,[46][47][48]52,56,57,59…”