Vitamin D-containing supplementation and depressive symptom severity in adults: A Bayesian systematic review and evidence-structure assessment
Xu G, Hu T, Zhang C, Kang M, Fang Y, Jiang Y, Gao Z, Wan X, Gao B
Clinical nutrition (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 0 citations
Review labels
Neutral facts our review recorded about how this study was done. They describe method, never whether we like the result.
How it was studied
- Design
- Meta-analysis (indexed by PubMed)
- Studied in
- People
- Main outcome
- Health markers and function
Who paid for it
- Funding
- Funding not disclosed
Publication
- Published
- 2026-08-03 · Clin Nutr · vol. 64 · p. 106751
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Cited
- 0 citations · more than 62% of similar papers · 0.0× the field average
- References
- 25 works
- Access
- Paywalled
- Research areas
- Vitamin D Research Studies · Vitamin C and Antioxidants Research · Bipolar Disorder and Treatment
- Keywords
- Vitamin, Depressive symptoms, Vitamin D and neurology, Depression (economics), Bayesian probability
- MeSH
- humans, vitamin d, severity of illness index, bayes theorem, depression, dietary supplements, adult, randomized controlled trials as topic
9 authors
From CN
- Guangru XuShanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine; Shuguang Hospital; Pudong New Area People's Hospital
- Tiantian Hu
- Chuanxia ZhangPudong New Area People's Hospital
- Mengyuan KangPudong New Area People's Hospital
- Yuan FangAnhui Medical University; Second Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University
- Yin Jiang
Abstract
Background & aims
Vitamin D supplementation has been proposed as a nutrition-related adjunctive strategy for depressive symptoms, but randomized evidence remains heterogeneous, and the feasibility of comparing multicomponent vitamin D-containing regimens is unclear. We evaluated the effects of vitamin D-containing supplementation on depressive symptom severity in adults and assessed whether the evidence structure supported network or component-level inference.
Methods
We searched PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP from inception to 15 April 2026. Randomized studies of vitamin D-containing nutritional interventions in adults with depressive disorders or clinically relevant depressive symptoms were included. The primary analysis was a Bayesian random-effects pairwise meta-analysis of endpoint depressive symptom scores in the oral vitamin D evidence layer. Frequentist endpoint and change-score analyses were used as robustness checks. Treatment-network connectivity and component estimability were assessed before any network or component network meta-analysis was attempted.
Results
Thirteen randomized studies published between 2013 and 2024 were retained. Seven studies with eight endpoint contrasts contributed to the Bayesian oral endpoint synthesis. Vitamin D-containing supplementation favored lower depressive symptom severity compared with comparators, with a posterior median SMD of -0.88 (95% credible interval, -1.38 to -0.35). Directional probabilities favored benefit, but between-study heterogeneity was substantial and posterior predictive intervals crossed the null. The treatment network was fragmented, and co-nutrient variation was sparse; therefore, formal network meta-analysis, treatment ranking, and component-level nutrient-synergy estimation were not methodologically defensible.
Conclusion
Vitamin D-containing supplementation shows a favorable but heterogeneous signal for depressive symptom severity in adults. Current randomized evidence supports cautious pairwise synthesis but not clinical treatment ranking or claims of incremental benefit from specific co-nutrients. Better replicated, vitamin D status-stratified, and component-informative trials are needed.
Abstract via Europe PMC. Copyright remains with the authors or publisher.
Community trust
Loading…
How much do you trust this study's findings?
Comments
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inSomething wrong here?
Flag this study if its information, labels or funding look wrong. An editor reviews every flag.
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inEducational information about published research. Not medical advice, and not a recommendation to start or stop anything.