Correlation of low serum vitamin-D with uterine leiomyoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Meta-analysis
Systematic review
Uterine fibroid
Uterine leiomyoma
Vitamin D
Journal
Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E
ISSN: 1477-7827
Titre abrégé: Reprod Biol Endocrinol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101153627
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 Aug 2020
14 Aug 2020
Historique:
received:
30
04
2020
accepted:
10
08
2020
entrez:
16
8
2020
pubmed:
17
8
2020
medline:
1
6
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
There is a growing body of evidence on low serum vitamin-D levels and the risk of uterine leiomyomas (UL). Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the association between serum vitamin D levels and UL occurrence. Searches were systematically conducted of the electronic databases PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, Web of Science (ISI), Cochrane library, Ovid, and Google Scholar to identify relevant studies from inception until February 6, 2020. Heterogeneity across the included studies was examined using Cochran's Q and I-square (I Nine eligible studies with a total of 1730 participants (835 patients with UL and 895 controls) were included in the current meta-analysis. Pooled results with random effects modeling indicated that serum vitamin D levels were significantly lower in patients with UL than in the control group (n = 9, SMD = - 0.67; 95% CI, - 0.98, - 0.35, p < 0.001; I To the best of our knowledge, the current meta-analysis showed for the first time that serum vitamin D levels were significantly lower in women with UL in selected populations.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
There is a growing body of evidence on low serum vitamin-D levels and the risk of uterine leiomyomas (UL). Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the association between serum vitamin D levels and UL occurrence.
METHODS
METHODS
Searches were systematically conducted of the electronic databases PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, Web of Science (ISI), Cochrane library, Ovid, and Google Scholar to identify relevant studies from inception until February 6, 2020. Heterogeneity across the included studies was examined using Cochran's Q and I-square (I
RESULTS
RESULTS
Nine eligible studies with a total of 1730 participants (835 patients with UL and 895 controls) were included in the current meta-analysis. Pooled results with random effects modeling indicated that serum vitamin D levels were significantly lower in patients with UL than in the control group (n = 9, SMD = - 0.67; 95% CI, - 0.98, - 0.35, p < 0.001; I
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
To the best of our knowledge, the current meta-analysis showed for the first time that serum vitamin D levels were significantly lower in women with UL in selected populations.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32795307
doi: 10.1186/s12958-020-00644-6
pii: 10.1186/s12958-020-00644-6
pmc: PMC7427296
doi:
Substances chimiques
Vitamin D
1406-16-2
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
85Références
Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2018 Jan;46:3-11
pubmed: 29054502
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2011 Apr;96(4):E754-62
pubmed: 21289245
J Nutr. 2006 Apr;136(4):1126-9
pubmed: 16549493
BJOG. 2017 Sep;124(10):1501-1512
pubmed: 28296146
J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2019 Apr;69(2):161-165
pubmed: 30956471
Epidemiology. 2013 May;24(3):447-53
pubmed: 23493030
BMJ. 1997 Sep 13;315(7109):629-34
pubmed: 9310563
Reprod Toxicol. 2015 Nov;57:81-6
pubmed: 26047529
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2013 Aug;98(8):E1374-8
pubmed: 23824422
Fertil Steril. 2020 Jan;113(1):205-216.e4
pubmed: 31739978
Int J Womens Health. 2013;5:93-100
pubmed: 23467803
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2015 Nov;131(2):117-22
pubmed: 26275638
PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000097
pubmed: 19621072
J Obstet Gynaecol. 2020 Jul;40(5):710-714
pubmed: 31635506
Int J Circumpolar Health. 2008 Jun;67(2-3):164-78
pubmed: 18767337
Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 Dec;95(52):e5698
pubmed: 28033263
BMC Public Health. 2017 Jun 22;17(1):519
pubmed: 28637448
Eur J Epidemiol. 2010 Sep;25(9):603-5
pubmed: 20652370
Biometrics. 1994 Dec;50(4):1088-101
pubmed: 7786990
J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2007 Mar;103(3-5):620-5
pubmed: 17287117
J Pharmacol Pharmacother. 2012 Apr;3(2):118-26
pubmed: 22629085
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Aug;213(2):141-60
pubmed: 25771213
BMJ Clin Evid. 2011 Jan 11;2011:
pubmed: 21477393
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Mar;206(3):211.e1-9
pubmed: 22244472
Fertil Steril. 2009 May;91(5):1919-25
pubmed: 18423458
J Nutr. 2011 Aug;141(8):1535-42
pubmed: 21697298
Medicine (Baltimore). 2018 Apr;97(15):e0360
pubmed: 29642181
Reprod Sci. 2014 Sep;21(9):1108-19
pubmed: 24925855
Gynecol Endocrinol. 2018 Mar;34(3):261-264
pubmed: 29067857
J Soc Gynecol Investig. 2004 Feb;11(2):104-12
pubmed: 14980312
Biol Reprod. 2012 Apr 19;86(4):116
pubmed: 22302692
BMC Public Health. 2016 May 11;16:385
pubmed: 27170258
Gynecol Oncol. 2011 May 1;121(2):369-75
pubmed: 21324518
Fertil Steril. 2016 Dec;106(7):1787-1792
pubmed: 27743697
Calcif Tissue Int. 2013 Feb;92(2):118-27
pubmed: 23314742
BMJ. 2003 Sep 6;327(7414):557-60
pubmed: 12958120