The Association between Vitamin D and Hashimoto Thyroiditis: An Up-to-date Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Zhengrong Liu; Linfei Feng; Yanfang He; Sijie Yuan; Chao Xu; Zhengrong Liu; Linfei Feng; Yanfang He; Sijie Yuan; Chao Xu

doi:10.48130/FMR-2022-0009

Figures (8) Tables (1)

Figure 1.
Forest plot of 25(OH)D₃ level (random model).
Figure 2.
Subgroup forest plot of 25(OH)D₃ level(fixed model).
Figure 3.
Forest plot of prevalence of Vitamin D insufficiency (random model).
Figure 4.
Subgroup forest plot of prevalence of Vitamin D insufficiency (fixed model).
Figure 5.
Forest plot of 25(OH)D₃ level (random model, Chinese studies).
Figure 6.
Forest plot of prevalence of Vitamin D insufficiency (random model, Chinese studies).
Figure 7.
Funnel plot of 25(OH)D₃ level.
Figure 8.
Funnel plot of quantity of individuals with 25(OH)D₃ insufficiency.

Study (published year)	Region	Sample size (HT:C)	25(OH)D₃ Assay method	Serum 25(OH)D₃ level (HT vs C) (ng/mL)	Serum 25(OH)D₃ insufficiency cut off (ng/mL)	Number of 25(OH)D₃ insufficiency (HT:C)	Quality score
Maciejewski et al. 2015^[23]	Poland	62/32	ELISA	8.00 ± 5.06 vs 12.12 ± 7.80	< 30	61/27	7
Ucan et al. 2016^[27]	Turkey	75/43	RIA	9.37 ± 0.69 vs 11.9 ± 1.01	< 20	75/36	9
Bozkurt et al. 2013^[12-17]]	Turkey	360/180	CLS	12.2 ± 5.6 vs 15.4 ± 6.8	< 10	150/37	8
Kim 2016^[20]	Korea	221/555	CLS	36.84 ± 22.96 vs 39.84 ± 21.48	< 30	108/206	8
Sonmezgoz et al. 2016^[25]	Turkey	68/68	CLS	16.8 ± 9.2 vs 24.1 ± 9.4	< 30	61/54	8
De Pergola et al. 2018^[18]	Italy	45/216	CLS	−	< 20	31/113	8
Botelho et al. 2018^[16]	Brazil	88/71	CLS	26.4 (7.6–48.2) vs 28.6 (13–51.2)	< 30	61/39	7
Ma et al. 2015^[22]	China	70/70	ELISA	12.40 ± 4.46 vs 16.53 ± 5.79	< 30	70/67	7
Yasmeh et al. 2016^[29]	America	97/88	CLS	24.5 ± 6.42 vs 20.6 ± 6.5	< 30	66/74	7
Xu et al. 2018^[28]	China	194/200	CPBA	16.16 (13.72–18.76) vs 23.32 (20.84–25.92)	−	−	7
Kivity et al. 2011^[21]	Israel	28/98	CLS	−	< 10	22/30	8
Mansournia et al. 2014^[24]	Iran	41/45	SC	15.9 ± 1.21 vs 24.4 ± 1.73	< 20	34/24	8
Tamer et al. 2011^[26]	Turkey	161/162	RIA	16.3 ± 10.4 vs 29.6 ± 2.55	< 30	148/102	8
Chaudhary et al. 2018^[32]	India	35/50	HPLC	13.39 ± 6.8 vs 26.16 ± 12.28	< 20	31/38	8
Evliyaoğlu et al. 2015^[31]	Turkey	90/79	HPLC	16.67 ± 11.65 vs 20.99 ± 9.86	< 20	80/69	8
Unal et al. 2014^[30]	Turkey	254/124	CLS	17.05 (5.4−80) vs 19.9 (9−122.7)	< 20	160/-	7
Ke et al. 2017^[19]	China	61/51	EBL	22.10 ± 1.52 vs 33.40 ± 1.56	< 20	34/12	7
Camurdan et al. 2012^[33]	Turkey	78/74	HPLC	31.2 ± 11.5 vs 57.9 ± 19.7	< 20	69/24	7
Dellal et al 2013^[34]	Turkey	51/27	RIA	17.3 ± 8.0 vs 21.8 ± 15.2	−	−	6
Siklar et al. 2016^[35]	Turkey	32/24	HPLC	16.02 ± 9.84 vs 21.91 ± 7.68	< 20	22/10	7
Nalbant et al. 2017^[36]	Turkey	253/200	CLS	33 ± 29.6 vs 43.7 ± 26.2	< 20	161/111	8
Giovinazzo et al. 2017^[37]	Italy	100/100	HPLC	21.2 ± 12.9 vs 35.7 ± 16.7	< 20	70/18	7
Guleryuz et al. 2016^[38]	Turkey	136/50	HPLC	14.88 ± 8.23 vs 15.52 ± 1.34	−	−	6
Perga et al. 2018^[39]	Italy	55/59	CLS	−	< 20	37/42
Yavuzer et al. 2017	Turkey	49/34	ELISA	19.5 ± 15 vs 23.8 ± 19	−	−	6
Priya et al. 2016	India	25/27	ELISA	14.3 (12.65−17.90) vs 26.2 (21.00−32.8)	−	−	6
Chao et al. 2020^[42]	China	373/4889	RIA	16.66 ± 6.51 vs 15.81 ± 6.42	< 20	363/4738	9
Feng et al. 2020^[44]	China	36/30	ELISA	17.39 ± 8.49 vs 35.15 ± 14.16	−	−	6
Ahi et al. 2020^[43]	Iran	633/200	CLS	13.22 (8.1−24.27) vs 20.4 (11.2−29.6)	−	−	7
Liu and Zhang. 2012^[46]	China	30/20	RIA	16.48 ± 6.25 vs 24.31 ± 7.88	−	−	7
Xiang et al. 2017^[47]	China	41/106	CLS	19.71 ± 8.43 vs 20.56 ± 11.64	< 30	38/90	6
Zhang et al. 2015^[48]	China	31/19	HPLC	17 ± 6 vs 24 ± 7	−	−	6
Chen et al. 2015^[45]	China	34/52	CLS	14.4 ± 5.6 vs 17.4 ± 5.6	< 20	29/37	7
Li et al. 2015^[49]	China	50/56	−	21.19 (18.40−25.28) vs 24.06 (18.94−33.90)	< 30	44/37	6
Cvek et al. 2021^[50]	Croatian	461/176	CLS	19.7 (14.4−25.2) vs 17.3 (13.2−22.7)	< 20	127/65	7
Salem et al. 2021^[51]	Egypt	120/120	ELISA	7.6 ± 4.4 vs 20.6 ± 5.5	< 10	120/112	7
Hana et al. 2021^[52]	Egypt	112/48	HPLC	10.1 (8.7−11.7) vs 12.0 (9.3−15.6)	< 30	101/40	6
Olszewska et al. 2020^[53]	Italy	30/20	−	17.9 ± 7.9 vs 18.5 ± 8.1	−	−	6
Rezaee et al. 2017^[40]	Iran	51/45	CLS	–	−	−	6
Ren et al. 2021^[55]	China	62/80	−	13.49 ± 4.32 vs 15.75 ± 5.85	< 30	60/76	6
Huang et al. 2018^[56]	China	61/50	CLS	16.27 ± 6.99 vs 29.01 ± 9.72	< 20	−	6
Chi et al. 2020^[57]	China	32/30	CLS	15.27 ± 5.98 vs 28.89 ± 9.58	−	−	6
Yang et al. 2021^[58]	China	88/60	−	13.37 ± 3.49 vs 17.58 ± 5.63	−	−	6
Ke et al. 2021^[59]	China	152/50	CLS	20.56 ± 1.4 vs 33.4 ± 6.5	< 20	90/6	7
Wang et al. 2015^[64]	China	31/30	ELISA	10.08 ± 0.44 vs 14.32 ± 3.74	−	−	6
Fu et al. 2021^[61]	China	334/300	−	16.84 (11.81, 23.39) vs 16.66 (11.98, 22.13)	< 30	214/209	7
H: hashimoto thyroiditis group; C: Healthy control group; ELISA: Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay; RIA: Radioimmunoassay; CLS: Chemiluminesent lmmunoassay Assay; CPBA: competitive protein binding assay; SC: Solid Chromatography, HPLC: High Performance Liquid Chromatography, EBL: Euglobulin lysis method, −: Non reported.

Table 1.

Characteristics of included studies.