A meta-analysis of the literature evaluating the impact of vitamin D on female fertility and ovarian reserve function.
Shanfei Zhao, Wenling Zheng, Guanyun Long and 1 others
PMID 41670949WHAT IT FOUND
Vitamin D supplementation was associated with higher ovulation and pregnancy rates in women with fertility problems, but it did not improve a blood marker of ovarian reserve.
Trial quality was poor, so this should not be taken as proof.
Key findings
01Pooled studies found higher dominant follicle counts, ovulation rates and pregnancy rates in women receiving vitamin D compared with controls.
02Pooled studies did not find a significant effect of vitamin D status or supplementation on AMH levels.
03The review judged the included trials to have a high risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The included trials were judged to have a high risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision. Heterogeneity was high for serum vitamin D and AMH results. Publication-bias checks were inconsistent, with some funnel plot asymmetry. The review reports 22 included studies but not the total number of women. The review did not find extensive evidence on pregnancy length in women with PCOS who used vitamin D supplements.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that vitamin D is a proven treatment for infertility or for improving ovarian reserve. The AMH results were not significant, the included trials were judged high risk of bias, and heterogeneity was high for several outcomes.