Evidence Hub

Influence of vitamin D supplementation on ovarian reserve as reflected by anti-Müllerian hormone levels: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Fang S, Li Y, Fan X, Zheng L

Frontiers in endocrinology, 2026

992 participants

Abstract

Background: Vitamin D has been implicated in ovarian physiology, yet its effect on ovarian reserve remains controversial. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the influence of vitamin D supplementation on ovarian reserve as indicated by serum anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) levels.

Methods: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, Wanfang, and CNKI were searched for RCTs comparing vitamin D supplementation with placebo or no intervention on AMH in women of reproductive age. The pooled effect was summarized as standardized mean difference (SMD) using a random-effects model by incorporating the influence of potential heterogeneity.

Results: Eleven RCTs with 992 women were included. Overall, vitamin D supplementation did not significantly affect serum AMH levels (SMD: -0.20; 95% CI: -0.48 to 0.08; p = 0.16), with substantial heterogeneity (I² = 77%, p 6 ng/mL (SMD: -0.55; 95% CI: -0.87 to -0.23). No significant subgroup differences were found by age, baseline 25(OH)D, vitamin D dose, treatment duration, or assay method.

Conclusions: Current randomized evidence suggests that vitamin D supplementation was not likely to alter AMH levels in reproductive-aged women overall. The certainty of evidence was moderate, and findings should be interpreted cautiously given substantial heterogeneity.

Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD420261329210.

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: 992 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