Vitamin D&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt;-Supplemented Yogurt Drink Improves Insulin Resistance and Lipid Profiles in Women with Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: A Randomized Double Blinded Clinical Trial

Li, Qin; Xing, Baoheng

doi:10.1159/000447433

Cited by 41 publications

(60 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the studies done by Li et al [32] and Valizadeh et al [31] where the investigators used a block randomization method, the risk of selection bias was low.…”

Section: Risk Of Bias In Articlesmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Finally, fulltext review of collected studies indicated that a total of 5 RCTs met all the inclusion criteria and could be retained for meta-analysis: Asemi et al [29], Asemi et al [30], Valizadeh et al [31], Li et al [32], and Yazdchi et al [33] (Figure 1). …”

Section: Inclusion and Exclusion Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Because the midwife could possibly foresee assignments, there was a high risk of selection bias in the term of allocation concealment. The study of Li et al [32] due to the use of a permuted block randomization method, which was stratified according to their baseline, had a low risk from the view of this bias. The study of Valizadeh et al [31] because of concealing the random allocation papers in sequentially-numbered envelopes had a low risk from the view of allocation concealment.…”

Section: Risk Of Bias In Articlesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the studies of Asemi et al [30] and Li et al [32] as the blinding of investigator and participants was ensured, the performance bias was rated low risk. In the study by Valizadeh et al [31] in 2016, the risk was high because there was no blinding.…”

Section: Blinding Of Participants and Personnel (Performance Bias)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All 5 studies were randomized and had a parallel study design. For the included studies, the number of participants was 54 [29], 45 [30], 42 [31], 97 [32], and 72 [33]. The total number of participants included in this systematic review was 310.…”

Section: Description Of Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Maternal and Neonatal Metabolic Outcomes of Vitamin D Supplementation in Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Many scientists have revealed the association between vitamin D deficiency and gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). The purpose of this review was to evaluate the impact of vitamin D supplementation on maternal and neonatal health measures in GDM. Methods: A comprehensive systematic literature search in the electronic databases including Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, Web of Sciences, EMBASE, Google Scholar, Clininaltrial.gov, and ProQuest as well as SID, Magiran, Irandoc, and Iranmedex for Persian literature review carried out up to January 2018. All RCTs and quasi-experimental studies that compared vitamin D supplementation with placebo or without supplementation on GDM women were included in this review. Results: Five randomized controlled trials involving 310 women were included in the meta-analysis. There were significant differences in fasting Plasma Glucose (FPG; mean difference [MD] –12.54, 95% CI –15.03 to –10.05; 3 trials, 223 participants); total cholesterol (TC; MD –24.77, 95% CI –32.57 to –16.98; 3 trials, 223 participants); low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol (MD –18.92, 95% CI –24.97 to –12.88; 3 trials, 223 participants); high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol (MD, 3.87, 95% CI 1.20–6.55; 3 trials, 223 participants); high sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP; MD –1.35, 95% CI –2.41 to –0.28; 2 trials, 126 participants); and Newborns’ hyperbilirubinemia (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.13–0.80; 2 trials, 129 participants). Conclusions: Supplementation of GDM women with vitamin D may lead to an improvement in FPG, TC, LDL, HDL, hs-CRP serum levels as well as in newborns’ hyperbilirubinemia.

show abstract

“…In the studies done by Li et al [32] and Valizadeh et al [31] where the investigators used a block randomization method, the risk of selection bias was low.…”

Section: Risk Of Bias In Articlesmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Inclusion and Exclusion Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Risk Of Bias In Articlesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Blinding Of Participants and Personnel (Performance Bias)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Description Of Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Maternal and Neonatal Metabolic Outcomes of Vitamin D Supplementation in Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Vitamin D supplementation for women during pregnancy

Palacios

Kostiuk

Peña-Rosas

2019

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

213

203

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND: Vitamin D deficiency or insufficiency is thought to be common among pregnant women. Vitamin D supplementation during pregnancy has been suggested as an intervention to protect against adverse pregnancy outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To examine whether oral supplements with vitamin D alone or in combination with calcium or other vitamins and minerals given to women during pregnancy can safely improve maternal and neonatal outcomes. METHODS: Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (23 February 2015), the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (31 January 2015), the Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations (28 January 2015) and also contacted relevant organisations (31 January 2015). Selection criteria: Randomized and quasi-randomized trials with randomization at either individual or cluster level, evaluating the effect of supplementation with vitamin D alone or in combination with other micronutrients for women during pregnancy. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently i) assessed the eligibility of studies against the inclusion criteria ii) extracted data from included studies, and iii) assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. Data were checked for accuracy. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: In this updated review we included 15 trials assessing a total of 2833 women, excluded 27 trials, and 23 trials are still ongoing or unpublished. Nine trials compared the effects of vitamin D alone versus no supplementation or a placebo and six trials compared the effects of vitamin D and calcium with no supplementation. Risk of bias in the majority of trials was unclear and many studies were at high risk of bias for blinding and attrition rates. • Vitamin D alone versus no supplementation or a placebo Data from seven trials involving 868 women consistently show that women who received vitamin D supplements alone, particularly on a daily basis, had higher 25-hydroxyvitamin D than those receiving no intervention or placebo, but this response was highly heterogeneous. Also, data from two trials involving 219 women suggest that women who received vitamin D supplements may have a lower risk of pre-eclampsia than those receiving no intervention or placebo (8.9% versus 15.5%; risk ratio (RR) 0.52; 95% CI 0.25 to 1.05, low quality). Data from two trials involving 219 women suggest a similar risk of gestational diabetes among those taking vitamin D supplements or no intervention/ placebo (RR 0.43; 95% CI 0.05, 3.45, very low quality). There were no clear differences in adverse effects, with only one reported case of nephritic syndrome in the control group in one study (RR 0.17; 95% CI 0.01 to 4.06;

show abstract