| Literature DB >> 31380438 |
Shanshan Zhu1, Yuhui Wang2, Fei Luo1, Jie Liu1, Liangchang Xiu1, Jiheng Qin3, Tao Wang2, Na Yu2, Hongfu Wu4, Tangbin Zou1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The relationship between vitamin D level and NAFLD has not been investigated in children and adolescents. We performed a meta-analysis of published observational studies to assess this association between vitamin D levels (measured as serum 25-hydroxy vitamin D [25(OH)D]) and NAFLD in this age group.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31380438 PMCID: PMC6662475 DOI: 10.1155/2019/7643542
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
The best estimating formula for an unknown distribution.
| Sample size (N) | Mean ( | Standard deviation (SD) |
|---|---|---|
| N ≤ 15 |
|
|
| 15 < N ≤ 25 | Median |
|
| 25 < N ≤ 70 | Median |
|
| N >70 | Median |
|
m: values of median; a: low end of range; b: high end of range; Q75: upper four quartile; Q25: lower four quartile.
Figure 1Literature screening flow chart.
Main characteristics of studies on continuous outcomes of vitamin D levels in NAFLD and controls, chronologically ordered.
| Study | Year | Control | NAFLD |
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | No. | 25(OH)D (ng/ml) | Age | No. | 25(OH)D (ng/ml) | |||
| Sezer et al.[ | 2016 | 12.60±3.10 | 53(38/15) | 14.60±7.00 | 12.90±2.20 | 58(26/32) | 16.60±6.20 | 0.113 |
| Mohamed et al. [ | 2016 | 10.60±3.10 | 23(14/9) | 41.98±14.52 | 11.13±2.70 | 47(28/19) | 20.89±16.56 | <0.001 |
| Malespin et al. [ | 2015 | 12.90±2.90 | 382(193/189) | 20.80±7.10 | 13.00±2.40 | 25(6/19) | 16.50±6.40 | 0.024 |
| Chang et al. [ | 2015 | 8.70±3.87 | 32(NR) | 17.70±5.05 | 11.46±2.53 | 62(NR) | 17.90±6.84 | 0.963 |
| Yildiz et al. [ | 2014 | 11.00±2.80 | 43(24/19) | 16.40±9.19 | 11.90±2.80 | 58(22/36) | 12.60±6.52 | 0.005 |
| Black et al.[ | 2014 | 17 | 838(381/457) | 30.85±9.62 | 17 | 156(96/60) | 26.84±8.81 | <0.001 |
| Nobili et al. [ | 2013 | 12.24±7.23 | 85(32/53) | 29.04±5.81 | 13.00±2.96 | 73(NR) | 19.30±6.70 | <0.001 |
| Pirgon et al. [ | 2013 | 12.48±1.60 | 72(NR) | 43.96±19.97 | 12.80±0.80 | 45(NR) | 29.50±18.40 | <0.05 |
The levels of 25(OH)D were compared between NAFLD and control groups; SD: standard deviation; NR: not reported.
Main characteristics of studies on the association between vitamin D and NAFLD, ordered by year of publication.
| Study | Country | Race/ | Study type | Health status | setting | Method of NAFLD ascertainment | BMI in NAFLD | BMI in controls |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sezer et al. (2016) [ | Turkey | Turkish | Cross-sectional | Hepatosteatosis | outpatient | ultrasound | 28.7±4.3 | 27.3±3.3 |
| Mohamed et al. (2016) [ | Egypt | Egyptian | Cross-sectional | NAFLD | outpatient | ultrasound | NR | NR |
| Malespin et al. (2015) [ | USA | Chinese | Cross-sectional | Suspected NAFLD | NR | Elevated ALT | NR | NR |
| Chang et al. (2015) [ | Korea | Korean | Case control | SS and NASH | outpatient | UPLC- | 25.89±4.13 | 23.7±2.63 |
| Yildiz et al. (2014) [ | Turkey | Turkish | Case control | Hepatosteatosis | Pediatrics clinic | ultrasound | 30.9±3.9 | 29.3±4.4 |
| Black et al. (2014) [ | Australia | Caucasian | Cross-sectional | NAFLD | General population | ultrasound | 27.0±7.4 | 22.0±3.0 |
| Nobili et al. (2014) [ | Italy | Caucasian | Cross-sectional | NAFLD | Liver biopsy | ultrasound | 31.3±4.37 | NR |
| Pirgon et al. (2013) [ | Turkey | Turkish | Case control | NAFLD | Inpatient | ultrasound | 28.7±4.7 | 28.4±3.6 |
SS: simple steatosis; NASH: nonalcoholic steatohepatitis; NAFLD: nonalcoholic fatty liver disease; BMI was measured in kg/m2; ALT: alanine aminotransferase; UPLC-MS/MS: ultra-performance liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry.
Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS) assessment of the quality of the case-control and cross-sectional studies.
| Study | Selection | Comparability | Exposure | Total scores | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Case definition adequate | Representativeness of the cases | Selection of controls | definition of Controls | Comparability based on design or analysis | Ascertainment of exposure | Same method of ascertainment for cases and controls | Non-response rate | ||
| Sezer et al. [ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | 6 | ||
| Mohamed et al. [ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | 8 | |
| Malespin et al. [ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | 6 | ||
| Chang et al. [ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | 6 | ||
| Yildiz et al. [ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★★ | ★ | ★ | 8 | |
| Black et al. [ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | 7 | |
| Nobili et al. [ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | 6 | ||
| Pirgon et al. [ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★★ | ★ | 6 | |||
Figure 2Forest plot of the studies comparing the association between vitamin D levels and children and adolescents with NAFLD by meta-analysis with the random effects analysis.
Subgroup analysis of studies comparing the association between vitamin D levels and children and adolescents with NAFLD.
| Subgroups | No. (NAFLD/Control) | Pooled SMD (95% CI) |
| I2 (%) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 25(OH)D (ng/ml) | |||||
| Overall | 2052 (524/1528) | -0.593 (-0.983, -0.204) |
| 89.8% |
|
| Study type | |||||
| Cross-sectional | 746 (203/543) | -0.793 (-1.673, 0.088) |
| 94.5% |
|
| Case-control | 1306 (321/985) | -0.418 (-0.674, -0.162) |
| 58.2% |
|
| Geographic location | |||||
| Western | 1559 (254/1305) | -0.856 (-1.558, -0.154) |
| 93.7% |
|
| Eastern | 493 (270/223) | -0.428 (-0.955, 0.098) |
| 87.3% |
|
| BMI (kg/m2) | |||||
| Obese | 581 (296/285) | -0.495 (-1.160, 0.170) |
| 93.2% |
|
| Non-obese | 1064 (203/861) | -0.834 (-1.715, 0.046) |
| 89.5% |
|
| Else | 407 (25/382) | -0.609 (-1.016, -0.202) |
| NR | NR |
| Age (years) | |||||
| Children | 265(167/98) | -0.575 (-1.285,0.135) |
| 86.4% |
|
| Adolescents | 1787(357/1430) | -0.606 (-1.129, -0.082) |
| 92.6% |
|
Ps denotes P value for heterogeneity based on Q test; P denotes P value for statistical significance based on Z test.
Figure 3The sensitivity analysis for the association between vitamin D levels and NAFLD in children and adolescents by the random effects analysis.