Search

PurposeMethodsResultsConclusionVitamin D deficiency has been associated with higher rates of autoimmune disease, including noninfectious uveitis. This PRISMA-compliant review and meta-analysis aimed to analyze the correlation between noninfectious uveitis and vitamin D levels.We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases for studies, published in English, assessing vitamin D levels in patients diagnosed with noninfectious uveitis. The outcomes of interest were vitamin D deficiency, vitamin D mean level, vitamin D supplementation, and smoking rates. A subgroup analysis of inactive uveitis and active uveitis was performed. The heterogeneity was assessed with Cochrane Q-test and I2 statistics; p > 0.10 and I2 > 50% were considered significant for heterogeneity. Statistical analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5.3.9 studies were included in the meta-analysis comprising a total of 10 711 patients, of whom 1,368 were diagnosed with noninfectious uveitis. Patients with noninfectious uveitis had worse results regarding vitamin D deficiency when compared with the control group (OR 0.58; CI 95% 0.44 to 0.77; p = 0.0002; I2 = 61%). Patients with inactive uveitis had better results towards vitamin D deficiency when compared with active uveitis (OR 5.00; CI 95% 2.84 to 8.81; p < 0.001; I2 = 0%).Our research supports the increasing evidence that associates vitamin D deficiency with noninfectious uveitis and its activity. Further investigation into the efficacy of vitamin D screening and supplementation in reducing the recurrence of uveitis is necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article is a response to a letter regarding a systematic review titled "Awake surgery for glioma resection during pregnancy." The authors address concerns raised about the lack of nuanced appraisal and familiarity in conducting and evaluating systematic reviews of case reports and case series. They explain the reasons for not registering their study in the PROSPERO registry and discuss the limitations of existing tools for assessing the risk of bias in case reports and case series. The authors also clarify the scope of their review and compare their findings with another recently published article on the same topic. They emphasize the need for careful interpretation of evidence from systematic reviews of case reports and case series and suggest that they serve as a base for achieving higher levels of evidence. [Extracted from the article]