Back

Postpartum and Youth Depression in the Context of Vitamin D Supplementation: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Nano, J. P.; Catterall, W.; Khaleghzadegan, S.; Castelblanco, C. A.; Blunt, H. B.; Yen, R. W.

2025-08-16 psychiatry and clinical psychology
10.1101/2025.08.14.25333707 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effect of vitamin D supplementation on depression among adolescents and young adults compared with placebo and baseline. MethodsWe searched databases and reference lists from inception to May 2024 for English-language studies, including cohort studies, case studies, and randomized clinical trials. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane RoB2 tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Random-effects meta-analyses estimated the standardized mean difference (SMD) in depression scores (primary outcome) and anxiety scores (secondary outcome). Heterogeneity was assessed using the I{superscript 2} statistic. ResultsFifteen studies (2010-2024) from 7,638 citations met inclusion criteria. The mean sample size was 5,271 (range: 38-74,840). Meta-analysis of nine studies showed that vitamin D supplementation significantly reduced depression scores versus placebo (SMD: -0.43; 95%CI: -0.75 to -0.12; p=0.007; I{superscript 2}=78%). Of six studies not included in the meta-analysis, five reported significant associations between supplementation and lower depression. Subgroup effects were observed for postpartum women (SMD: -0.55; 95%CI: -1.04 to -0.06; p<0.05; I{superscript 2}=83%) and young adults (SMD: -1.38; 95%CI: -1.65 to -1.10; p<0.001; I{superscript 2}=76%). Meta-analysis of four studies found no significant association with anxiety (SMD: -0.31; 95%CI: -0.75 to 0.12; p=0.16; I{superscript 2}=77%). LimitationsVariability in study sample sizes may affect interpretation and generalizability. ConclusionsVitamin D supplementation was associated with lower depression scores, with effects varying by subgroup.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.