Evidence Hub

Vitamin D levels in systemic sclerosis patients: a meta-analysis

Lin An, Mingshuai Sun, Feng Chen, Jin-ran Li

Drug Design, Development and Therapy, 2017

554 participants · 52 citations

Abstract

Purpose This study aimed to investigate the association between vitamin D and systemic sclerosis (SSc) by meta-analysis. Methods A comprehensive search was performed through June 12, 2017. Pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) was used to estimate the mean vitamin D difference between case and control groups (or between diffused- and limited-type SSc). Pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to assess the impact of vitamin D level on clinical characteristics of SSc patients. All statistical analyses were performed using Revman 5.0 software. Results The search yielded six studies with a total of 554 SSc patients and 321 healthy controls. The meta-analysis showed that SSc patients suffered from decreased vitamin D levels (SMD =−8.72 ng/mL; 95% CI: −10.11 to −7.32) compared with healthy controls. The meta-analysis results of three studies with 240 SSc patients (93 diffused-type and 147 limited-type SSc patients) showed that diffused-type SSc patients exhibited lower vitamin D levels (SMD =−4.71 ng/mL; 95% CI: −8.98 to −0.44) compared with limited-type SSc patients. However, vitamin D level was not found to be associated with Rodnan score (SMD =−2.29 ng/mL, 95% CI: −8.49 to 3.91, P=0.47), systolic pulmonary pressure (SMD =−1.68 ng/mL, 95% CI: −10.79 to 7.43, P=0.72), gastrointestinal ulcer (RR =1.01, 95% CI: 0.53–1.93, P=0.98), or pulmonary involvement (RR =1.01, 95% CI: 0.36–2.86, P=0.99) in SSc patients. Conclusion SSc patients exhibited…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 554 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free