Volume 16, Issue 6 (Nov & Dec- In press 2026)
J Research Health 2026, 16(6): 2-2 |
Back to browse issues page
Ethics code: Not applicable
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Tan C, Christantia V, Sayogo Y. Does Duration Matter? An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Recent Randomized Controlled Trials on Vitamin D Supplementation and Depressive Symptoms (2020-2025). J Research Health 2026; 16 (6) :2-2
URL: http://jrh.gmu.ac.ir/article-1-3056-en.html
URL: http://jrh.gmu.ac.ir/article-1-3056-en.html
1- Department of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Indonesia - dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo General Hospital, Special Region of Jakarta, Indonesia , christopherctan25@gmail.com
2- School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Atma Jaya Catholic University of Indonesia, Special Region of Jakarta, Indonesia
2- School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Atma Jaya Catholic University of Indonesia, Special Region of Jakarta, Indonesia
Abstract: (35 Views)
Background: Vitamin D has been increasingly investigated as a potential adjunctive therapy for depressive symptoms, but results remain inconsistent. This study aimed to provide an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 2020-2025 to clarify its efficacy and identify potential moderators.
Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of six electronic databases (PubMed, ProQuest, Wiley, EBSCOhost, Taylor & Francis, and Sage Journals), supplemented by Google Scholar and citation checking, up to August 11, 2025. Eligible studies included RCTs evaluating vitamin D supplementation (any form, dose, or route) against placebo or control in participants with major depressive disorder (MDD) or depressive symptoms assessed via validated scales. A random-effects meta-analysis was done with subgroup analyses examining supplementation dose, intervention duration, baseline vitamin D status and diagnostic methods. Risk of bias was evaluated with RoB 2, and certainty of evidence was assessed with GRADE. This meta-analysis followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and is registered to PROSPERO (CRD420251125689).
Results: Twenty-four RCTs (n = 30,282) were included. Vitamin D supplementation was associated with reduced depressive symptoms (SMD = -0.37, 95% CI [-0.55, -0.19], p < 0.001). In the prespecified subgroup analysis, benefit was observed in trials lasting ≤12 weeks but not >12 weeks, with no significant subgroup difference. Moderate-dose showed a significant within-subgroup effect, but dose subgroup differences were not significant. No moderating effects were observed for baseline vitamin D status or diagnostic method. Evidence of publication bias was detected.
Conclusion: Vitamin D supplementation may be associated with a modest antidepressant effect, however the certainty of evidence was very low because of substantial heterogeneity, imprecision, and publication bias. High-quality, long-duration RCTs with standardized dosing and stratification by baseline vitamin D status are needed before Vitamin D can be recommended as routine adjunctive therapy.
Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of six electronic databases (PubMed, ProQuest, Wiley, EBSCOhost, Taylor & Francis, and Sage Journals), supplemented by Google Scholar and citation checking, up to August 11, 2025. Eligible studies included RCTs evaluating vitamin D supplementation (any form, dose, or route) against placebo or control in participants with major depressive disorder (MDD) or depressive symptoms assessed via validated scales. A random-effects meta-analysis was done with subgroup analyses examining supplementation dose, intervention duration, baseline vitamin D status and diagnostic methods. Risk of bias was evaluated with RoB 2, and certainty of evidence was assessed with GRADE. This meta-analysis followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and is registered to PROSPERO (CRD420251125689).
Results: Twenty-four RCTs (n = 30,282) were included. Vitamin D supplementation was associated with reduced depressive symptoms (SMD = -0.37, 95% CI [-0.55, -0.19], p < 0.001). In the prespecified subgroup analysis, benefit was observed in trials lasting ≤12 weeks but not >12 weeks, with no significant subgroup difference. Moderate-dose showed a significant within-subgroup effect, but dose subgroup differences were not significant. No moderating effects were observed for baseline vitamin D status or diagnostic method. Evidence of publication bias was detected.
Conclusion: Vitamin D supplementation may be associated with a modest antidepressant effect, however the certainty of evidence was very low because of substantial heterogeneity, imprecision, and publication bias. High-quality, long-duration RCTs with standardized dosing and stratification by baseline vitamin D status are needed before Vitamin D can be recommended as routine adjunctive therapy.
Keywords: Vitamin D, Cholecalciferol, Depression, Major Depressive Disorder, Randomized controlled trials, Meta-Analysis
Type of Study: Review Article |
Subject:
● Psychosocial Health
Received: 2026/02/27 | Accepted: 2026/05/31 | Published: 2026/11/4
Received: 2026/02/27 | Accepted: 2026/05/31 | Published: 2026/11/4
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-By-NC), which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
Contact Information
