Background
Methods
Design
Search strategy
("Alphapapillomavirus" [mh] OR "Human papillomavirus 16" [mh] OR "Human papillomavirus 31" [mh] OR "Human papillomavirus 18" [mh] OR "Human papillomavirus 6" [mh] OR "Human papillomavirus 11" [mh] OR "Papillomavirus Infections" [mh] OR "Warts" [mh] OR Alphapapillomaviruses [tiab] OR HPV Human Papillomavirus [tiab] OR HPV Human Papillomaviruses [tiab] OR Human Papillomavirus [tiab] OR Human Papillomaviruses [tiab] OR HPV 16 [tiab] OR Human papillomavirus type 16 [tiab] OR HPV 31 [tiab] OR Human papillomavirus type 31 [tiab] OR HPV 18 [tiab] OR Human papillomavirus type 18 [tiab] OR HPV 6[tiab] OR Human papillomavirus type 6 [tiab] OR Papillomavirus [tiab] OR HPV 11 [tiab] OR Human papillomavirus type 11 [tiab] OR Papillomavirus Infection [tiab] OR Human Papillomavirus Infection [tiab] OR Human Papillomavirus Infections [tiab] OR HPV Infection [tiab] OR HPV Infections [tiab] OR Wart [tiab]) AND ("Vitamin D" [mh] OR "25-Hydroxyvitamin D 2" [mh] OR "Calcifediol 25-hydroxyvitamin D" [mh] OR "Cholecalciferol" [mh] OR "Hydroxycholecalciferols" [mh] OR "Calcitriol" [mh] OR 25 Hydroxyvitamin D 2 [tiab] OR 25 Hydroxyergocalciferol [tiab] OR 25 Hydroxyvitamin D2 [tiab] OR Ercalcidiol [tiab] OR 25 Hydroxycalciferol [tiab] OR 25 Hydroxyvitamin D 3 [tiab] OR 25 Hydroxycholecalciferol Monohydrate [tiab] OR 25 Hydroxyvitamin D3 [tiab] OR Calcidiol [tiab] OR 25 Hydroxycholecalciferol [tiab] OR Calcifediol Anhydrous [tiab] OR Dedrogyl [tiab] OR Hidroferol [tiab] OR Calderol [tiab] OR 25-hydroxyergocalciferol [tiab] OR Calciol [tiab] OR Vitamin D 3 [tiab] OR Vitamin D3 [tiab] OR Cholecalciferols [tiab] OR Hydroxyvitamins D [tiab] OR Hydroxycholecalciferol [tiab] OR Bocatriol [tiab] OR Calcijex [tiab] OR Calcitriol KyraMed [tiab] OR Calcitriol Nefro [tiab] OR Decostriol [tiab]) |
Selection criteria
Study selection process
Data extraction
Quality assessment
Assessment of the quality of cohort studies | |||||||||
Selection (max 4 scores) | Comparability (max 2 scores) | Outcome (max 3 scores) | Total score** | ||||||
Author/ Year/ Reference | Representativeness of the exposed cohort | Selection of the non-exposed cohort | Ascertainment of exposure | Demonstration that outcome of interest was not present at start of study | Comparability of cohorts on the basis of the design or analysis | Assessment of outcome | Was follow-up long enough for outcomes to occur | Adequacy of follow up of cohorts | |
Chu et al. (2021) [28] | * | * | * | * | ** | * | * | * | 9 |
El-Zein et al. (2021) [24] | * | * | * | * | ** | * | * | * | 9 |
Troja et al. (2021) [29] | * | * | * | * | ** | * | * | * | 9 |
Assessment of the quality of cross-sectional studies | |||||||||
Selection (max 5 scores) | Comparability (max 1 score) | Outcome (max 3 scores) | |||||||
Author/ Year/ Reference | Representativeness of the sample | Sample size | Non-response rate | Ascertainment of the measure | Potential confounders were investigated based on the study design or subgroup analysis | Assessment of the outcome | Statistical test | - | Total score |
Shim et al. (2016) [20] | - | * | - | ** | * | ** | * | - | 7 |
Garcia-Carrasco et al. (2015) [23] | - | * | - | ** | * | ** | * | - | 7 |
Troja et al. (2020) [30] | - | * | * | * | * | * | * | - | 6 |
Mertoğlu et al. (2017) [31] | - | - | - | * | - | * | - | - | 2 |
Çakir et al. (2022) [32] | - | - | - | * | - | * | - | - | 2 |
Assessment of the quality of case-control studies | |||||||||
Selection (max 4 scores) | Comparability (max 2 scores) | Exposure (max 3 scores) | |||||||
Author/ Year/ Reference | Adequate case definition | Representativeness of the cases | Selection of controls | Definition of controls | Basis of the design or analysis | Ascertainment of exposure | Same method of ascertainment for cases and controls | Non-Response rate | Total score |
Ozgu et al. (2016) [21] | * | * | * | * | ** | - | * | * | 8 |
Results
Author (Year)/Ref. | Country | Design | Sample size/Participants | Findings |
---|---|---|---|---|
Garcia-Carrasco et al. (2015) [23] | Mexico | Cross-sectional | 67 / patients with systemic lupus erythematous | No significant relationship was found between vitamin D deficiency and cervical HPV (P=0.7). |
Shim et al. (2016) [20] | USA | Cross-sectional | 2351 / 20-59 years | Cervicovaginal HPV prevalence was associated with less-than-optimal levels of serum vitamin D (aOR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.02– 1.27). |
Ozgu et al. (2016) [21] | Turkey | Case-control | 85 / 20-65 years/ 23 cases: positive HPVDNA testing and abnormal PAP smear result / 62 controls: negative HPV DNA testing and cervical biopsy results | Deficiency of Vitamin D and its metabolites can be a possible reason for HPVDNA persistence and related cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (P=0.009). |
Troja et al. (2020) [30] | USA | Cross-sectional | 404 / 30–50 years | Serum vitamin D levels were not associated with hrHPV prevalence. However higher levels of a subtype [24,25(OH)2D3] was positively associated with the higher likelihood of hrHPV detection (aOR ¼ 1.22; 95% CI, 0.97–1.52). No significant associations were observed for other biomarkers. |
El-Zein et al. (2021) [24] | Canada | Cohort | 490 / 18-24-years | No evidence of an association between low vitamin D levels and increased HPV prevalence, acquisition, or clearance. |
Troja et al. (2021) [29] | USA | Longitudinal cohort | 72/ 30–50 years | Significant positive association between higher systemic vitamin D stores and short-term hrHPV persistence. |
Chu et al. (2021) [28] | Taiwan | Data were derived from the ongoing prospective cohort of health examinations | 7699/ women over 20 years | Vitamin D deficiency was associated with the hrHPV infection of the cervix (P < 0.05). |