Vitamin D and Insulin-Dependent Diabetes: A Systematic Review of Clinical Trials.

(1) Background: Vitamin D supplementation after type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) onset has led to conflicting results on beta-cell preservation. Aim: This paper presents a systematic review to verify whether randomized prospective controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrate that improved vitamin D status confers protection on T1DM. (2) Methods: A systematic review was conducted up until 18 January 2024 according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, searching MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, using keywords "vitamin D", "type 1 diabetes", and "children". (3) Results: Following the above-mentioned search process, 408 articles in PubMed and 791 in Embase met inclusion criteria. After removing duplicates, 471 articles remained. After exclusion criteria, 11 RCTs remained. Because of major heterogeneity in design and outcomes, no meta-analyses were conducted, allowing only for qualitative analyses. There was no strong evidence that vitamin D supplementation has lasting effects on beta-cell preservation or glycemic control in new-onset T1DM. (4) Conclusions: More rigorous, larger studies are needed to demonstrate whether vitamin D improves beta-cell preservation or glycemic control in new-onset T1DM. Because T1DM may cause osteopenia, it is advisable that patients with new onset T1DM have adequate vitamin D stores.

Trends in Health Quality-Related Publications Over the Past Three Decades: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Quality assessment in health care is a process of planned activities with the ultimate goal of achieving a continuous improvement of medical care through the evaluation of structure, process, and outcome measures. Physicians and health care specialists involved with quality issues are faced with an enormous and nearly always increasing amount of literature to read and integrate. Nevertheless, the novelty and quality of these articles (in terms of evidence-based medicine) has not been systematically assessed and described. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to test the hypothesis that the number of high-evidence journal articles (according to the pyramid of evidence), such as randomized control trials, systematic reviews, and ultimately, practice guidelines, increases over time, relative to lower-evidence journal articles, such as editorials, reviews, and letters to the editors. METHODS: We used PubMed database to retrieve relevant articles published during the 31-year period between January 1, 1989, and December 31, 2021. The search was conducted in April 2022. We used the keywords "quality care," "quality management," "quality indicators," and "quality improvement" and limited the search fields to title and abstract in order to limit our search results to articles nearly exclusively related to health care quality. RESULTS: During this 31-year evaluation period, there was a significant cubic increase in the total number of publications, reviews, clinical trials (peaking in 2017, with a sharp decline until 2021), controlled trials (peaking in 2016, with a sharp drop until 2021), randomized controlled trials (peaking in 2017, with a sharp drop until 2021), systematic reviews (nearly nonexistent in the 1980s through 1990s to a peak of 222 in 2021), and meta-analyses (from nearly none in the 1980s through 1990s to a peak of approximately 40 per year in 2020). There was a linear increase in practice guidelines from none during 1989-1991 to approximately 25 per year during 2019-2021, including a cubic increase in editorials, peaking in 2021 at 125 per year, and in letters to the editor, peaking at 50-78 per year in the last 4 years (ie, 2018-2021). CONCLUSIONS: Over the past 31 years, the field of quality in health care has seen a significant yearly increase of published original studies with a relative stagnation since 2015. We suggest that contributors to this dynamic field of research should focus on producing more evidence-based publications and guidelines.