Vitamin D Supplementation and Sleep: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Intervention Studies

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Background: Vitamin D deficiency is associated with sleep disorders and poor sleep quality. Whether vitamin D supplementation (VDS) helps resolve these problems remains unclear. Objective: To systematically review the effect of VDS on sleep quantity, quality, and disorders, and perform a meta-analysis of available data. Methods: The reporting of this review followed the PRISMA statement. VDS human interventions studies that reported on sleep quality, quantity, or disorders were included. Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycInfo, the Cochrane Library, Clinicaltrials.gov, and the ICTRP were searched, in addition to the references of the included articles and previous relevant reviews, without language or time restrictions. Included studies were critically appraised, findings were narratively synthesized, and a meta-analysis was conducted. Furthermore, the overall certainty of the evidence was assessed. Results: A total of 19 studies were included (13 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 1 opportunistic addition to an RCT, 4 pre–post studies, and 1 pre–post study analyzed as a case series); 3 RCTs were meta-analyses. The risk of bias was generally low. Pre–post studies showed a significant improvement in sleep quality with VDS. Similarly, the results of the meta-analysis revealed a statistically significant decrease in the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index with VDS compared with placebo (mean difference, −2.33 (95% CI, −3.09, −1.57); p < 0.001; I2 = 0%), with a moderate certainty of evidence. The results regarding the effect of VDS on sleep-related impairment, difficulty, and disorders, as well as sleepiness and restless legs syndrome, were not unanimous. Conclusions: VDS is promising in improving sleep quality; however, its effect on sleep quantity and disorders needs to be further investigated.

Related collections

Most cited references 58

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews

Matthew J Page (2021)

The methods and results of systematic reviews should be reported in sufficient detail to allow users to assess the trustworthiness and applicability of the review findings. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was developed to facilitate transparent and complete reporting of systematic reviews and has been updated (to PRISMA 2020) to reflect recent advances in systematic review methodology and terminology. Here, we present the explanation and elaboration paper for PRISMA 2020, where we explain why reporting of each item is recommended, present bullet points that detail the reporting recommendations, and present examples from published reviews. We hope that changes to the content and structure of PRISMA 2020 will facilitate uptake of the guideline and lead to more transparent, complete, and accurate reporting of systematic reviews.

0 comments Cited 1755 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

International classification of sleep disorders-third edition: highlights and modifications.

Michael J Sateia (2014)

The recently released third edition of the International Classification of Sleep Disorders (ICSD) is a fully revised version of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine's manual of sleep disorders nosology, published in cooperation with international sleep societies. It is the key reference work for the diagnosis of sleep disorders. The ICSD-3 is built on the same basic outline as the ICSD-2, identifying seven major categories that include insomnia disorders, sleep-related breathing disorders, central disorders of hypersomnolence, circadian rhythm sleep-wake disorders, sleep-related movement disorders, parasomnias, and other sleep disorders. Significant modifications have been made to the nosology of insomnia, narcolepsy, and parasomnias. Major features and changes of the manual are reviewed in this article. The rationales for these changes are also discussed.

0 comments Cited 652 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence--study limitations (risk of bias).

Gordon Guyatt, Andrew D Oxman, Gunn Elisabeth Vist … (2011)

In the GRADE approach, randomized trials start as high-quality evidence and observational studies as low-quality evidence, but both can be rated down if most of the relevant evidence comes from studies that suffer from a high risk of bias. Well-established limitations of randomized trials include failure to conceal allocation, failure to blind, loss to follow-up, and failure to appropriately consider the intention-to-treat principle. More recently recognized limitations include stopping early for apparent benefit and selective reporting of outcomes according to the results. Key limitations of observational studies include use of inappropriate controls and failure to adequately adjust for prognostic imbalance. Risk of bias may vary across outcomes (e.g., loss to follow-up may be far less for all-cause mortality than for quality of life), a consideration that many systematic reviews ignore. In deciding whether to rate down for risk of bias--whether for randomized trials or observational studies--authors should not take an approach that averages across studies. Rather, for any individual outcome, when there are some studies with a high risk, and some with a low risk of bias, they should consider including only the studies with a lower risk of bias. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.