Supplementation of Vitamin D in the Postdelivery Period of Women with Previous Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

dc.contributor.authorKron-Rodrigues, Meline Rossetto
dc.contributor.authorRudge, Marilza Vieira Cunha [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorLima, Silvana Andrea Molina [UNESP]
dc.contributor.institutionBrazil
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
dc.date.accessioned2022-04-29T08:36:05Z
dc.date.available2022-04-29T08:36:05Z
dc.date.issued2021-09-01
dc.description.abstractObjective To evaluate the effects of vitamin D supplementation in the postpartum period of women with previous gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). Methods Randomized clinical trials of pregnant women with GDM of any chronological, gestational age and parity, with no history of previous disease who received vitamin D supplementation in the prenatal and/or postpartum period and were evaluated in the postpartum period were included. The PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and LILACS databases were consulted until July 2019. Serum vitamin D concentration (25-hydroxyvitamin D in nmol/L), fasting blood glucose, glycated hemoglobin, serum calcium concentration, homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), quantitative insulin sensitivity check index (QUICKI), parathyroid hormone (PTH) and body mass index (BMI) were evaluated. Similar results in at least two trials were plotted using the RevMan 5; Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, Reino Unido. The quality of the evidence was generated according to the classification, development, and evaluation of the classification of the recommendations. Results Four studies were included in the present review (200 women). The findings indicate that there is no difference in the postpartum period in women diagnosed with previous GDM who received vitamin D supplementation in the prenatal and/or in the postpartum period, showing only that there was a significant increase in the concentration of vitamin D (relative risk [RR]: 1.85; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02-2.68). Conclusion This increase in the concentration of vitamin D should be interpreted with caution, since the assessment of the quality of the evidence was very low. For the other analyzed outcomes, there was no significance between the intervention and control groups, and the outcomes, when analyzed in their strength of evidence, were considered very low and low in their evaluation.en
dc.description.affiliationUniversidade Guarulhos Programa de Pós-Graduação em Enfermagem (Stricto Sensu) Guarulhos SP Brazil
dc.description.affiliationDepartamento de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filho, SP
dc.description.affiliationDepartamento de Enfermagem Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filhoc, SP
dc.description.affiliationUnespDepartamento de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filho, SP
dc.description.affiliationUnespDepartamento de Enfermagem Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filhoc, SP
dc.format.extent699-709
dc.identifierhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-1734000
dc.identifier.citationRevista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetricia, v. 43, n. 9, p. 699-709, 2021.
dc.identifier.doi10.1055/s-0041-1734000
dc.identifier.issn0100-7203
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85118212252
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11449/229811
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofRevista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetricia
dc.sourceScopus
dc.subjectgestational diabetes
dc.subjectmeta-analysis
dc.subjectpostpartum period
dc.subjectsystematic review
dc.subjectvitamin D
dc.titleSupplementation of Vitamin D in the Postdelivery Period of Women with Previous Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trialsen
dc.typeArtigo

Arquivos