Neuroprotective Effects of Vitamin D Supplementation on Outcomes in Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

preprint OA: closed
📄 Open PDF Full text JSON View at publisher

Abstract

Background Traumatic brain injury (TBI) remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, with secondary brain damage driven by inflammation and oxidative stress. Vitamin D is increasingly recognized for potential neuroprotective effects in TBI, while data regarding vitamin E remain limited. Objective To systematically review and meta-analyze the effects of vitamin D supplementation, and qualitatively review evidence for vitamin E, on clinical and functional outcomes after moderate to severe TBI. Methods A comprehensive search was carried out in PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar up to January 2025. Studies reporting on vitamin D or E supplementation in clinical TBI were eligible. Risk of bias was assessed using JBI checklists. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials reporting pre- and post-treatment GCS scores following vitamin D supplementation was performed with a fixed-effect model. Results From 4,546 records, nine clinical studies met criteria; three RCTs on vitamin D (n=151 patients) were included in the meta-analysis, which found that vitamin D supplementation significantly improved GCS scores versus controls (SMD□= □1.02, 95% CI: 0.68–1.36, p□< □0.0001; I 2 □= □0%). Narrative analysis suggested that vitamin D may improve functional outcomes, reduce inflammatory biomarkers, and lower mortality in select studies. Evidence for vitamin E in TBI is currently limited to a small number of heterogeneous studies, with early data suggesting possible benefits for acute recovery and oxidative stress reduction, but insufficient for quantitative synthesis. Conclusion Vitamin D supplementation may confer short-term improvement in neurological and functional outcomes following moderate to severe TBI. Existing evidence for vitamin E is insufficient to support robust conclusions. Larger, rigorously designed RCTs—particularly for vitamin E—are required to clarify effectiveness, optimal dosing, and long-term outcomes.
Full text 3,433 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · 5 sections · click to expand

Abstract

Background Traumatic brain injury (TBI) remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, with secondary brain damage driven by inflammation and oxidative stress. Vitamin D is increasingly recognized for potential neuroprotective effects in TBI, while data regarding vitamin E remain limited.

Objective

To systematically review and meta-analyze the effects of vitamin D supplementation, and qualitatively review evidence for vitamin E, on clinical and functional outcomes after moderate to severe TBI.

Methods

A comprehensive search was carried out in PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar up to January 2025. Studies reporting on vitamin D or E supplementation in clinical TBI were eligible. Risk of bias was assessed using JBI checklists. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials reporting pre- and post-treatment GCS scores following vitamin D supplementation was performed with a fixed-effect model.

Results

From 4,546 records, nine clinical studies met criteria; three RCTs on vitamin D (n=151 patients) were included in the meta-analysis, which found that vitamin D supplementation significantly improved GCS scores versus controls (SMD□= □1.02, 95% CI: 0.68–1.36, p□< □0.0001; I2□= □0%). Narrative analysis suggested that vitamin D may improve functional outcomes, reduce inflammatory biomarkers, and lower mortality in select studies. Evidence for vitamin E in TBI is currently limited to a small number of heterogeneous studies, with early data suggesting possible benefits for acute recovery and oxidative stress reduction, but insufficient for quantitative synthesis.

Conclusion

Vitamin D supplementation may confer short-term improvement in neurological and functional outcomes following moderate to severe TBI. Existing evidence for vitamin E is insufficient to support robust conclusions. Larger, rigorously designed RCTs—particularly for vitamin E—are required to clarify effectiveness, optimal dosing, and long-term outcomes. Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest. Funding Statement This study did not receive any funding Author Declarations I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained. Yes I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals. Yes I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance). Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable. Yes Footnotes ↵@ Co-First Author The authors list were updated. Data Availability All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2025) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00