Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2025 May 28;20(5):e0324729. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0324729

Impact of vitamin D on glycemic control and microvascular complications in type 2 diabetes: A cross-sectional study

Salma Ahi 1,*, Amirreza Reiskarimian 2, Mohammad Aref Bagherzadeh 1,3,4, Zhila Rahmanian 1, Parisa Pilban 2, Saeed Sobhanian 1
Editor: Santhi Silambanan5
PMCID: PMC12118829  PMID: 40435133

Abstract

Vitamin D has been increasingly recognized for its potential role in modulating various health conditions, including diabetes and its complications. Despite growing evidence suggesting that adequate vitamin D levels may reduce the risk of developing type 2 diabetes and its associated microvascular complications, the precise nature of this relationship remains unclear. This study aims to elucidate the connection among vitamin D status, glycemic control, and microvascular complications in patients with type 2 diabetes, thereby highlighting the importance of vitamin D in diabetes management.This analytical cross-sectional study included 199 type 2 diabetic mellitus (T2DM) patients from the Jahrom city endocrinology clinic. Serum 25(OH)D levels were measured, and their microvascular complications (microalbuminuria, retinopathy, neuropathy, macroalbuminuria) and glycemic control (HbA1C) were measured and confirmed according to ADA guidelines and endocrinologist supervision. All analysis were done with SPSS software. The study enrolled 199 type 2 diabetic patients with a mean age of 56.79 ± 10.8 years, of which 63.3% were female and 57.3% had hypertension. The mean BMI was 28.91 kg/m², and 29.1% of participants had vitamin D deficiency. The prevalence of microvascular complications was 25.6% for retinopathy, 14.1% for neuropathy, and 40% for nephropathy. Vitamin D deficiency was notably higher among patients with retinopathy (37.25%), neuropathy (50%), and macroalbuminuria (56.25%). Patients with neuropathy and retinopathy had significantly lesser serum 25(OH)D concentrations compared to patients without these complications. There was a slight inverse correlation between vitamin D levels and both the urine albumin creatinine ratio (r = -0.175, p = 0.018) and HbA1C (r = -0.19, p = 0.007). Although the link between vitamin D levels and retinopathy was not statistically significant (η = 0.903, p = 0.68), the alteration in vitamin D levels was suggestively linked with neuropathy (η = 0.975, p < 0.001).Vitamin D deficiency is prevalent among type 2 diabetic patients and is related to a higher occurrence of microvascular complications and poorer glycemic control. These findings underscore the potential importance of managing vitamin D levels in reducing complications and improving diabetes outcomes. Future studies should investigate whether oral vitamin D supplements consumption can improve glycemic control and reduce microvascular complications in these patients.

Introduction

Healthcare organizations face significant challenges due to the growing burden of chronic diseases, which pose a severe threat to public health in developing nations [1]. Among these, diabetes mellitus stands out as one of the most predominant chronic conditions worlwide, swiftly escalating into a worldwide epidemic [2]. The rising incidence of diabetes mellitus is linked to factors such as population growth, aging, urbanization, increasing rates of obesity, and sedentary behavior [3].

In 1980, According to the World Health Organization (WHO),there were 108 million patients living with diabetes. By 2017, the occurrence of diabetes between adults aged 18–99 years was assessed at 8.4%, with projections indicating a rise to 9.9% by 2045 [4].

The burden of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in Iran is substantial, with an overall prevalence of 10.8% (rising to 21.7% in adults aged 55–64), disproportionately affecting women (13.4% vs. 10.8% in men) and regions like Khuzestan (15.3%). Temporal trends show a sharp increase from 7.08% (1988–2002) to 15.0% (2013–2017), with obesity (BMI ≥ 35: 19% prevalence) as a key risk factor. Economically, T2DM costs Iran 152.4 billion PPP (7.69% of GDP), with 62% direct costs (medical: 10,819 PPP/patient) and 38% indirect costs, straining healthcare systems (direct medical costs are 6.18× per capita health expenditure). The aging population and complications (e.g., cardiovascular disease) exacerbate disability risks, underscoring the need for targeted prevention, screening, and cost-effective management strategies to mitigate future burdens [5,6].

Besides, Iran faces a significant burden of vitamin D deficiency, with prevalence rates of 59.1% in adults, 76% in adolescents, and 23.3% in infants, far exceeding global levels. Vitamin D deficency contributes to non-communicable diseases, including T2DM, as low vitamin D levels impair insulin sensitivity and increase metabolic dysfunction [7].

The complications of diabetes mellitus tend to progress over time, leading to significant medical expenses, a decline in quality of life, and heightened mortality rates associated with the condition [8]. The vascular and tissue damage resulting from diabetes progression can give rise to severe complications, including retinopathy, nephropathy, cardiovascular disease, cerebral and peripheral vascular disease, and diabetic foot ulcers [9,10].This study primarily concentrates on three major microvascular complications of T2DM and their association with serum vitamin D3 levels: 1) diabetic retinopathy, 2) diabetic neuropathy, and 3) diabetic nephropathy.

  • 1- Diabetic retinopathy is a distinct vascular complication observed in both types of diabetes includingT2DM. Its occurrence is closely linked to the duration of the disease and the effectiveness of glycemic management. As the prominent reason of new cases of adult blindness, diabetic retinopathy poses a significant public health concern [11]. Current projections suggest that the number of individuals affected by this condition will rise to 191 million by 2030 [12].

  • 2- Diabetic neuropathy is among the most prevalent microvascular complications of diabetes, often leading to considerable disability [13]. It can cause severe pain, sensory loss, heightened susceptibility to leg ulcers, diabetic foot, and, in severe cases, amputation [14,15]. The persistent pain associated with this condition significantly impacts patients’ sleep, mood, daily functioning, and overall quality of life [16].

  • 3- Diabetic nephropathy is the primary cause of end-stage renal disease globally. Its development is primarily driven by chronic hyperglycemia and hypertension [17]. Early identification and management of these risk factors, along with prompt diagnosis and treatment, are crucial for effective management of the condition [18].

As discussed earlier, the three primary microvascular complications of T2DM are closely linked to blood glucose levels and glycemic control. Additionally, serum vitamin D levels have been presented to influence blood glucose regulation and glycemic control in T2DM. This underscores the importance of understanding the role of vitamin D in these mechanisms. Vitamin D obtained from the skin and diet undergoes metabolism in the liver to form 25-hydroxyvitamin D, which serves as the key indicator of a patient’s vitamin D status. Subsequently, 25-hydroxyvitamin D is further metabolized in the kidneys to its active form, 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D [19]. Receptors for 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 are found in the intestine and bone, as well asin numerous other tissues, such as the brain, heart, stomach, pancreas, activated T and B lymphocytes, skin, and gonads [20]. Animal studies have demonstrated that 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 stimulates pancreatic β-cells to secrete insulin [21]. Findings from numerous animal and human studies indicate that vitamin D may perhaps help reduce the risk of developing diabetes [22].

Vitamin D deficiency is an important health problem that has not yet recognized well [20] and is defined by most experts as a 25-hydroxyvitamin D level of less than 20 ng/ml [19]. Risk factors for vitamin D deficiency include skin pigmentation, use of sunscreen or covering clothing, elderly or being institutionalized, malabsorption, renal and liver disease, obesity, and anticonvulsant drug use [23]. The role of vitamin D deficiency has been recognized as a risk factor for impaired glucose tolerance. As the prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in patients with type 2 diabetes is high, investigation about its’ potential adverse effect on diabetic patients are crucial [24]. It is noteworthy that vitamin D deficiency can be treated by giving one dose of 50,000 IU of oral vitamin D once a week for 8 weeks to the patients [25].

Despite numerous studies on the association between vitamin D deficiency and different metabolic diseases, its role in type-2 diabetes was paradoxical. This study aims to investigate the relationship between serum 25(OH) D concentrations and microvascular complications (diabetic nephropathy (macroalbuminuria, and microalbuminuria), retinopathy, neuropathy), and glycemic control in type 2 diabetic patients.

Materials and methods

Study design

This analytical cross-sectional study (started: September 16, 2021, and ended: March 23, 2022) includes 199 type-2 diabetic patients who were referred to the endocrinology clinic of Jahrom city. The definitive diagnosis of type 2 diabetes is confirmed and controlled based on updated ADA guideline [26] under the supervision of an endocrinologist (Fig 1). Participants were required to have a confirmed diagnosis of T2DM for at least 1 year prior to enrollment. This criterion ensured access to longitudinal clinical data, including prior HbA1C measurements, complication screenings, and treatment histories, which were essential for analyzing chronic microvascular outcomes. Also it is mportant to note that patients selected for this study were following typical Iranian dietary patterns, which feature a balanced mix of plant-based foods and animal proteins. We did not specifically focus on or recruit vegetarians, vegans, or individuals with restrictive dietary practices.

Fig 1. Graphical abstract of the study design; from patients selection and clinical evaluation and also statistical data analysis.

Fig 1

Exclusion criteria:Type-1 diabetic patients, pregnant or lactating women, patients with malabsorption disorders, celiac disease, inflammatory bowel disease, and those who have undergone gastric bypass surgery or receiving glucocorticoids were excluded.

Data collection and measurements

Age, sex, weight, height, and period of diabetes were documented for all the subjects. The body mass index (BMI) was calculated as weight (kg) divided by the square of height (m2). Blood pressure (BP) was measured after at least a 10-min rest, with the patient in a seated position (back supported, feet flat, arm at heart level). For patients with elevated readings, two additional measurements were taken at 1–2-minute intervals, and the average was recorded, consistent with WHO/AHA protocols for hypertension diagnosis.

Blood samples were drawn in the morning after at least an 8-h fast and also 2 hours after breakfast. Fasting blood sugar (FBS), 2-hour post-prandial blood glucose (2HPP), glycated hemoglobin A1C (HbA1C), and serum creatinine were measured. Patients were categorized into three groups based on the HbA1C index (HbA1C < 7.5% or appropriate glycemic control, ≥ 7.5 and < 8% or inappropriate glycemic control, and HbA1C ≥ 8% or uncontrolled [27].

Serum vitamin D3 level was measured by assessing the level of serum 25(OH) vitamin D in samples. This measurement was doneby LIAISON vitamin D chemiluminescence immunoassay (DiaSorin, Saluggia, Italy). The serum concentration of ≥ 30 ng/ml was considered sufficient, ≥ 20 and < 30 ng/ml as insufficient, and < 20 ng/ml as deficient [17].

Random urine samples were collected to measure the urine albumin creatinine ratio (UACR). Patients were categorized into three groups based on the UACR. Values ≥ 300 mg/g creatinine were defined as macroalbuminuria, ≥ 300 and < 300 mg/g creatinine as microalbuminuria, and < 30 mg/g creatinine as normoalbuminuria [16]. In patients with UACR ≥ 30 and < 300 mg/g creatinine, random urine samples were repeated at least three more times with intervals of several months. If two out of four samples were ≥ 30 and < 300 mg/g creatinine, the patient was considered to have microalbuminuria [28].

All type 2 diabetic patients were sent to an ophthalmologist as soon as they were diagnosed [29]. Diabetic retinopathy was diagnosed by an ophthalmologist based on funduscopic and slit lamp examination findings and related treatments. Diabetic neuropathy was also diagnosed based on monofilament 10-g, position, vibration, and autonomic tests as long as recording the complaints and history of the patients [30] (Fig 1 & S1 Fig).

Statistical analysis

The SPSS Statistics 22® (IBM Corp.) program was used for statistical analysis. mean and standard deviation formation was set for variables with normal distribution, while variables with non-normal distribution were arranged in the form of median and 25th – 75th percentile, and nominal variables are expressed as numbers and percentages. The normality statement in variables was calclated using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. Distributions higher than P > 0.05 were accepted as normally distributed variables. Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to compare the variables between three subgroups. The chi-square test, Pearson correlation test, and Eta coefficient test were also used for statistical analysis. A p-value less than 0.05 was considered significant.

Ethical consideration

The study protocol was approved by the research ethics committee of Jahrom University of Medical Sciences (IR.JUMS.REC.1399.154). All patients were voluntarily participate to this study and they signed an inform consent to share their data with us and for publication.

Results

Baseline characteristics

The clinical and laboratory characteristics such as sex, age, body mass index (BMI), duration of diabetes, hypertension, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, HbA1C, fasting blood sugar (FBS), 2-hour post-prandial sugar (2HPP), serum creatinine and urine microalbumin to creatinine ratio are as follows (Table 1). Here is to note that baseline characteristics of this study (N = 199) include 56.79 years mean age, 57.3% with hypertension, and 29.1% with vitamin D deficiency. The mean BMI was 28.91 kg/m². The frequency of microvascular complications of type 2 diabetes in a total of 199 established type 2 diabetic patients is shown in the second part of Table 1 (nephropathy (40%), retinopathy (25.6%) and neuropathy (14.1%)). Also, the status of vitamin D levels can be seen in the third part of Table 1, which demonstrates high frequency of vitamin deficiency beside its insufficiency among T2DM patients (63%).

Table 1. Clinical and laboratory characteristics of patients. Cell contents are expressed as a number, percentage, mean ± s.d., or median (25th – 75th percentile). Normally distributed variables are shown as mean ± s.d. nonparametric variables are shown as median (25th – 75th percentile).

Parameter (N = 199)
Baseline Characteristics Sex, F/M 126/73
Age, years 56.79 ± 10.78
BMI, kg/m2 28.91 (26.23–32.75)
Duration, years 8 (3–15)
Hypertension, yes% 114, 57.3%
SBP, mmHg 125 (110–140)
DBP, mmHg 80 (74–82)
HbA1C, % 7.7 (6.5–8.9)
FBS, mg/dL 134 (111–173)
2HPP, mg/dL 198 (162–263)
SCr, mg/dL 1 (0.9–1.2)
25-OHD, ng/ml 24.3 (18–35.5)
UACR, mg/g 22 (9.73–78)
Microvascular
Complications
Retinopathy, N(percent) 51 (25.6%)
Neuropathy,
N(percent)
28 (14.1%)
Microalbuminuria
(UACR* 30–300 mg/g)
64 (32.2%)
Macroalbuminuria
(UACR ≥ 300 mg/g)
16 (8%)
Vitamin D deficiency Vitamin D Deficiency
(< 20 ng/ml)
58 (29.1%)
Vitamin D Insufficiency
(20–30 ng/ml)
68 (34.2%)
Vitamin D Sufficiency
(≥ 30 ng/ml)
73 (36.7%)

BMI, body mass index; SBP, systolic blood pressure; DBP, diastolic blood pressure; HbA1C, hemoglobin A1C; FBS, fasting blood sugar; 2HPP, 2-hour post-prandial blood glucose; SCr, serum creatinine; 25-OHD, 25-hydroxyvitamin D; UACR, urine albumin to creatinine ratio. & Frequency of DM microvascular complications. & Frequency of Vitamin D Deficiency, Insufficiency, and Sufficiency.

T2DM patients with diabetic retinopathy had meaningfully lower serum 25-OH D concentration (24.59 ± 13.77 ng/ml) and besides, a higher prevalence of vitamin D deficiency and insufficiency (37.25%, 35.3%) in comparison with those without retinopathy(27.96 ± 13.54 ng/ml; 26.35%, 33.78%) Table 2 & Fig 2A.

Table 2. Distribution of patients based on the presence or absence of microvascular complications and vitamin D level.

Vitamin D status UACR Retinopathy Neuropathy
Macroalbuminuria (UACR* ≥ 300 mg/g) Microalbuminuria (UACR 30–300 mg/g) Neg. No Yes No Yes
Vitamin D Deficiency (< 20 ng/ml) 9 24 25 39 19 44 14
Vitamin D Insufficiency (20–30 ng/ml) 5 19 44 50 18 59 9
Vitamin D Sufficiency (≥ 30 ng/ml) 2 21 50 59 14 68 5
Vitamin D level 19.21 ± 9.76 ng/ml 24.66 ± 13.54 ng/ml 29.47 ± 13.6 ng/ml 27.96 ± 13.54 ng/ml 24.59 ± 13.77 ng/ml 27.74 ± 13.22 ng/ml 23.21 ± 15.7 ng/ml

*UACR, urine albumin to creatinine ratio.

Fig 2. Comparisons of serum vitamin D levels in different groups of diabetic patients.

Fig 2

(A) Vitamin D levels in patients with and without diabetic retinopathy: The violin plot shows a marginal difference in vitamin D levels between patients with and without retinopathy (p = 0.0504). (B) Vitamin D levels in patients with and without diabetic foot: A significant difference is observed, with lower vitamin D levels in patients with diabetic foot compared to those without (p < 0.05). (C) Vitamin D levels across albuminuria groups: No significant difference (ns) is seen between macroalbuminuria and microalbuminuria groups, but a significant difference is observed between the no albuminuria group and the other groups (p = 0.05). (D) Vitamin D levels in control groups based on diabetic control status: A significant difference (***p < 0.001) is found between uncontrolled and appropriate control groups, with a borderline significant difference between inappropriate control and uncontrolled groups (p = 0.054).

In addition, the participants with diabetic neuropathy had significantly lower serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration (23.21 ± 15.7 ng/ml) and a much higher prevalence of vitamin D deficiency (50%) as well as lower prevalence of vitamin D insufficiency (32.14%) in comparison with those without neuropathy (27.74 ± 13.22 ng/ml; 25.73%, 34.5%) Table 2 & Fig 2B.

Furthermore, the patients with macroalbuminuria had significantly lower serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration (19.21 ± 9.76 ng/ml) and a much higher prevalence of vitamin D deficiency (56.25%) than microalbuminuric (24.66 ± 13.54 ng/ml, 37.5%) and normoalbuminuric ones(29.47 ± 13.6 ng/ml, 41.18%) Table 2 & Fig 2C.

As demonstrated in Fig 3A-heatmap there is a significant negative correlation between vitamin D levels and urine albumin creatinine ratio and HBA1C. The outcomes of the Pearson correlation test demonstrated that there is a slight inverse correlation between the two variables of urine albumin creatinine ratio and vitamin D level (25-OHD) (r = -0.175, p = 0.018) Fig 3B. The results of the eta (η) coefficient test showed that the change in vitamin D level (25-OHD) is related to the occurrence of retinopathy, but p.value was not significant (η = 0.903, p = 0.68). Also, the results of the eta coefficient test showed that the change in vitamin D level (25-OHD) is strongly related to the occurrence of neuropathy (η = 0.975, p < 0.001). The results of the Pearson correlation test showed that there is a slight inverse correlation between the two variables of the HbA1C index and vitamin D level (25-OHD) (r = -0.19, p = 0.007) Fig 3C.

Fig 3. Correlation of clinical and biochemical parameters;

Fig 3

(A) Correlation matrix of clinical and biochemical parameters: Pearson correlation coefficients (R) between age, weight, height, BMI, duration of type 2 diabetes (DMT2), fasting blood sugar (FBS), 2-hour postprandial blood sugar (2HPP), HbA1C, urinary albumin/creatinine ratio (UMAlb/UC), serum creatinine (S.Cr), and serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25-OHD). Significant correlations are highlighted with asterisks. Strong positive correlations are shown in red, and negative correlations in blue, with color intensity reflecting the strength of the correlation. (B) Scatter plot with regression line of 25-OHD versus UMAlb/UC: A weak negative correlation is observed between 25-OHD levels and urinary albumin/creatinine ratio (R = -0.17, p = 0.018), indicating that lower vitamin D levels are associated with higher albuminuria. (C) Scatter plot with regression line of 25-OHD versus HbA1C: A weak negative correlation (R = -0.19, p = 0.007) is seen between 25-OHD levels and HbA1C, suggesting that lower vitamin D levels may be linked to poorer glycemic control.

The patients with HbA1C ≥ 8% had significantly lower serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration (24.47 ± 13.82 ng/ml) and higher prevalence of vitamin D deficiency (38.2%) than patients with HbA1C 7.5% - 8% (26.53 ± 11.19 ng/ml, 26.32%) and patients with HbA1C < 7.5% (29.78 ± 13.54 ng/ml, 20.88%) Fig 2D also see Table 3 & S2 and S3 Figs.

Table 3. Distribution of patients based on glycemic control and vitamin D level.

Vitamin D status HbA1C* Index
Appropriate Controlled (HbA1C < 7.5%) Inappropriate Controlled (HbA1C 7.5–8%) Uncontrolled (HbA1C ≥ 8%)
Vitamin D Deficiency
(< 20 ng/ml)
19 5 34
Vitamin D Insufficiency
(20–30 ng/ml)
33 7 28
Vitamin D Sufficiency
(> 30 ng/ml)
39 7 27
Vitamin D level (29.78 ± 13.54 ng/ml) (26.53 ± 11.19 ng/ml) (24.47 ± 13.82 ng/ml)

*HbA1C, hemoglobin A1C.

Discussion

The relationship between 25(OH) vitamin D and microvascular complications, align with the glycemic control status of diabetes mellitus type 2 were investigated. The maximal prevalence of microvascular complications: microalbuminuria, retinopathy, neuropathy, and macroalbuminuria was found in the patients with vitamin D deficiency. Poorly controlled diabetes (HbA1C ≥ 8%) was clearly related to lower levels of vitamin D, and patients who had appropriate glycemic control (HbA1C < 7.5%) had higher serum 25 (OH) D concentrations.

As mentioned previously, patients with retinopathy had a lower mean serum 25(OH) D in comparison with participants without retinopathy. These results were consistent with following previous studies. Afarid et al found that the mean serum 25(OH) D concentration in patients with diabetic retinopathy was lower than in those without diabetic retinopathy [31]. In Luo et al meta-analysis, type 2 diabetes patients with vitamin D deficiency (serum 25(OH) D levels <20 ng/mL) have a significantly increased risk of diabetic retinopathy and an obvious decrease of 1.7 ng/mL in serum vitamin D was established in the patients with diabetic retinopathy [32]. There are also more similar studies aligning with our results [3336]. Conversely in Alam et al study, there was no difference in serum 25(OH) D between those with and those without diabetic maculopathy [37]. In Bonakdaran et al study, correlation among 25(OH) D level and other recognized risk factors of diabetic retinopathy was not significant [38]. Our analysis revealed that there is a significant relationship between serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level and retinopathy.

Our results showed that a significantly higher prevalence of vitamin D deficiency (50%) was observed in neuropathic diabetic patients in comparison with diabetic participants without neuropathy (25.73%). In He et al cross-sectional study, T2DM patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathy had significantly lesser serum 25(OH) D concentration and also higher prevalence of vitamin D deficiency (80%) than non-diabetic neuropathy patients [39]. According to Niu et al study [40], a serum 25(OH)D level < 34.87 nmol/L proposes the incidence of neuropathy in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes. In Zhang et al meta-analysis [41] the serum concentration of 25(OH) D in type 2 diabetes combined with neuropathy group was lower than in the group without neuropathy. On the contrary, Huang et al results provided no evidence to support the causal association of serum 25 (OH (D levels with diabetic neuropathy (OR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.98–1.00, P = 0.09) [42]. Our analysis revealed that there is a significant relationship between serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level and neuropathy.

The serum level of 25-hydroxyvitamin D in patients with macroalbuminuria (19.21 ± 9.76 ng/ml) was lower than patients with microalbuminuria (24.66 ± 13.54 ng/ml) and normoalbuminuric patients (29.47 ± 13.6 ng/ml). In Felicio et al cross-sectional study that included 1576 diabetic patients, The 25(OH) D concentration in patients with normoalbuminuria were higher than the levels detected in those with micro or macroalbuminuria [43]. Also, there was a higher prevalence of vitamin D deficiency (56.25%) in patients with macroalbuminuria than normoalbuminuric patients. However prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in patients with microalbuminuria was the lowest. Özgür et al found that as vitamin D levels decreased, the frequency of albuminuria was on an increasing trend [44]. Our analysis revealed that there is a slight inverse correlation between urine albumin creatinine ratio and serum 25(OH) D concentration. Similar results were found in the other studies. For example, in a meta-analysis by Derakhshanian et al, a significant reverse connotation between serum vitamin D status and also the risk for nephropathy in patients with diabetes was observed [45] and a 25OHD level ≤ 21 ng/ml was considered an optimal cut-off point value for having macroalbuminuria in diabetic patients [46].

Our data demonstrated that higher serum 25 (OH) D concentrations were observed in well glycemic control participants. Our analysis showed that there is a slight inverse correlation between HbA1C index and 25 (OH) D level. Same results was observed in multiple studies [43,47,48]; although some studies found no significant relationship between 25 (OH) D levels and HbA1c [4951].

In a recent cross‐sectional study, Chen et al. (2022) [52] evaluated the link between vitamin D deficiency and microvascular complications in a cohort of T2DM patients from a Chinese population. Their findings demonstrated that lower serum 25(OH)D levels were significantly correlated with a higher prevalence of diabetic retinopathy and nephropathy, even after adjusting for glycemic control and other metabolic parameters. This observation aligns with our results, where vitamin D deficiency was markedly associated with an increased risk of microvascular complications, particularly in patients with poor glycemic control. The study by Cheng et al. also highlighted that subtle regional and dietary differences might modulate vitamin D status, a point that resonates with our emphasis on the typical Iranian dietary habits of our study [52].

Further reinforcing the therapeutic potential of vitamin D, a systematic review and meta-analysis by Xuan et al. (2022) [53] examined the effect of vitamin D supplementation in patients with diabetic nephropathy. Their analysis of 10 randomized controlled trials, encompassing 651 patients, revealed that vitamin D supplementation significantly increased serum vitamin D levels while concurrently reducing urinary protein excretion and blood creatinine levels. These findings suggest that vitamin D not only acts as a protective factor in diabetic nephropathy but may also ameliorate kidney dysfunction when used alongside standard treatments. Such results complement our own findings, underscoring the clinical relevance of maintaining adequate vitamin D status in mitigating microvascular complications associated with type 2 diabetes.

The main strength of this study is the investigation of the three major diabetic microvascular complications and the simultaneous evaluation of glycemic control correlation with vitamin D in the participants. The small sample size and the cross-sectional design are the limitations of our study. Furthermore, sunlight exposure [54], outdoor activity time, and patients’ diet were not considered in the study. The sample size was determined by feasibility, and no formal a priori power calculation was conducted. Post-hoc analyses indicated sufficient power (≥80%) for detecting moderate-to-large effects (e.g., neuropathy-HbA1C correlations) but limited power for smaller associations (e.g., retinopathy). Future studies should prioritize prospective power calculations to validate these findings.

Conclusion

The consistent relationship of vitamin D levels with diabetic microvascular complications as well as glycemic control opens a new insight into diabetes management for consideration due to the availability and further nutritional importance of vitamin D.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. The study design and results of study patients.

(JPG)

pone.0324729.s001.jpg (72.9KB, jpg)
S2A Fig. Distribution of key baseline characteristics of the study participants (N = 199).

Age Distribution: Displays the frequency of participants by age (mean age = 56.79 ± 10.8 years). BMI Distribution: Shows the frequency of participants by body mass index (mean BMI = 28.91 kg/m²). FBS (Fasting Blood Sugar) Distribution: Depicts the frequency of participants based on their fasting blood sugar levels. HbA1C Distribution: Illustrates the frequency of participants by HbA1C percentage, an indicator of glycemic control.

(JPG)

pone.0324729.s002.jpg (206.9KB, jpg)
S2B Fig. Vitamin D status and its association with health conditions among the participants.

This bar chart shows the counts of patients categorized by vitamin D status (deficiency, insufficiency, and sufficiency) and the presence or absence of specific health conditions, including macroalbuminuria, retinopathy, and neuropathy. Deficiency, insufficiency, and sufficiency are compared for each health condition to highlight the relationship between vitamin D status and the prevalence of microvascular complications.

(JPG)

pone.0324729.s003.jpg (158.4KB, jpg)
S3A Fig. Comparison of Vitamin D Levels According to Glycemic Control: Vitamin D levels are compared across three glycemic control categories: appropriately controlled (HbA1C < 7.5%), inappropriately controlled (HbA1C ≥ 7.5% and < 8%), and uncontrolled (HbA1C ≥ 8%).

The Kruskal-Wallis test was used for statistical analysis. *p < 0.05 for comparisons between appropriately controlled vs. inappropriately controlled and vs. uncontrolled groups. Though significant, p-values are not shown in the figure.

(JPG)

pone.0324729.s004.jpg (147.2KB, jpg)
S3B Fig. Comparison of Vitamin D Levels According to Albuminuric Stages: Vitamin D levels are compared across three stages of albuminuria: normoalbuminuria (< 30 mg/g creatinine), microalbuminuria (≥ 30 mg/g and < 300 mg/g creatinine), and macroalbuminuria (≥ 300 mg/g creatinine).

The Kruskal-Wallis test was used for statistical analysis. *p < 0.05 for comparisons between normoalbuminuria vs. microalbuminuria and macroalbuminuria. Although significant, p-values are not displayed in the figure.

(JPG)

pone.0324729.s005.jpg (148.1KB, jpg)

Data Availability

Due to ethical restrictions imposed by the Ethics Committee of Jahrom University of Medical Sciences to protect participant confidentiality, the data underlying this study cannot be made publicly available. Qualified researchers may request access to the de-identified minimal dataset by contacting the university's independent Ethics Committee at info@jums.ac.ir (with email title: Access to research data) or +98 (715) 4474992. Requests will be reviewed for compliance with ethical standards and institutional regulations. The data will be stored securely in the university’s institutional repository, which guarantees long-term preservation and accessibility for approved researchers, irrespective of author availability.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Organization WH. World health statistics 2015. World Health Organization; 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Lorenzo C, Williams K, Hunt KJ, Haffner SM. The National Cholesterol Education Program - Adult Treatment Panel III, International Diabetes Federation, and World Health Organization definitions of the metabolic syndrome as predictors of incident cardiovascular disease and diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2007;30(1):8–13. doi: 10.2337/dc06-1414 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Wendland EM, Torloni MR, Falavigna M, Trujillo J, Dode MA, Campos MA, et al. Gestational diabetes and pregnancy outcomes--a systematic review of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Association of Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) diagnostic criteria. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2012;12:23. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-12-23 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Bommer C, Sagalova V, Heesemann E, Manne-Goehler J, Atun R, Bärnighausen T. Global economic burden of diabetes in adults: projections from 2015 to 2030. Diabetes Care. 2018;41(5):963–70. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Jalilian H, Heydari S, Imani A, Salimi M, Mir N, Najafipour F. Economic burden of type 2 diabetes in Iran: A cost-of-illness study. Health Sci Rep. 2023;6(2):e1120. doi: 10.1002/hsr2.1120 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Hazar N, Jokar M, Namavari N, Hosseini S, Rahmanian V. An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence of type 2 diabetes in Iran, 1996–2023. Front Public Health. 2024;12:1322072. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Abtahi M, Dobaradaran S, Koolivand A, Jorfi S, Saeedi R. Burden of disease induced by public overexposure to solar ultraviolet radiation (SUVR) at the national and subnational levels in Iran, 2005–2019. Environ Pollut. 2022;292:118411. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Chatterjee S, Khunti K, Davies MJ. Type 2 diabetes. Lancet. 2017;389(10085):2239–51. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30058-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Fasil A, Biadgo B, Abebe M. Glycemic control and diabetes complications among diabetes mellitus patients attending at University of Gondar Hospital, Northwest Ethiopia. Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes. 11:75–83. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Papatheodorou K, Papanas N, Banach M, Papazoglou D, Edmonds M. Complications of diabetes 2016. Hindawi; 2016. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Association AD. Microvascular complications and foot care: standards of medical care in diabetes—2021. Diabetes Care. 2020;44(Supplement_1):S151–67. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Bellemo V, Lim ZW, Lim G, Nguyen QD, Xie Y, Yip MYT, et al. Artificial intelligence using deep learning to screen for referable and vision-threatening diabetic retinopathy in Africa: a clinical validation study. Lancet Digit Health. 2019;1(1):e35–44. doi: 10.1016/S2589-7500(19)30004-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Hunt D. Using evidence in practice. Foot care in diabetes. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am. 2002;31(3):603–11. doi: 10.1016/s0889-8529(02)00022-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Booya F, Bandarian F, Larijani B, Pajouhi M, Nooraei M, Lotfi J. Potential risk factors for diabetic neuropathy: a case control study. BMC Neurol. 2005;5:24. doi: 10.1186/1471-2377-5-24 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Association A. Microvascular complications and foot care: Standards of medical care in diabetes—2021. Diabetes Care. 2021;44(Supplement_1):S151–67. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Iqbal Z, Azmi S, Yadav R, Ferdousi M, Kumar M, Cuthbertson DJ, et al. Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy: Epidemiology, Diagnosis, and Pharmacotherapy. Clin Ther. 2018;40(6):828–49. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2018.04.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Samsu N. Diabetic nephropathy: challenges in pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment. Biomed Res Int. 2021;2021:1–10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Tziomalos K, Athyros VG. Diabetic Nephropathy: New Risk Factors and Improvements in Diagnosis. Rev Diabet Stud. 2015;12(1–2):110–8. doi: 10.1900/RDS.2015.12.110 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Holick MF. Vitamin D deficiency. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(3):266–81. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra070553 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Holick MF. Vitamin D: A millenium perspective. J Cell Biochem. 2003;88(2):296–307. doi: 10.1002/jcb.10338 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Lips P, Eekhoff M, van Schoor N, Oosterwerff M, de Jongh R, Krul-Poel Y, et al. Vitamin D and type 2 diabetes. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2017;173:280–5. doi: 10.1016/j.jsbmb.2016.11.021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Mitri J, Muraru MD, Pittas AG. Vitamin D and type 2 diabetes: a systematic review. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2011;65(9):1005–15. doi: 10.1038/ejcn.2011.118 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Pearce SH, Cheetham TD. Diagnosis and management of vitamin D deficiency. BMJ. 2010;340. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Ozfirat Z, Chowdhury TA. Vitamin D deficiency and type 2 diabetes. Postgrad Med J. 2010;86(1011):18–25; quiz 24. doi: 10.1136/pgmj.2009.078626 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Malabanan A, Veronikis IE, Holick MF. Redefining vitamin D insufficiency. Lancet. 1998;351(9105):805–6. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(05)78933-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.ADAPP C. Classification and diagnosis of diabetes: standards of medical care in diabetes—2022. Diabetes Care. 2021;45(Supplement_1):S17–38. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Ghavami H, Ahmadi F, Mehin S, Meamarian R, Entezami H. Assessment of the relation between diabetic neuropathy & HbA1C concentration. Razi J Med Sci. 2007;13(53):141–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Toto RD. Microalbuminuria: definition, detection, and clinical significance. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2004;6(11 Suppl 3):2–7. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-6175.2004.4064.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Edwards AL. Funduscopic examination of patients with diabetes who are admitted to hospital. CMAJ. 1986;134(11):1263–5. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Baker N. Prevention, screening and referral of the diabetic foot in primary care. Diabetes Prim Care. 2011;13(4):225–34. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Afarid M, Ghattavi N, Johari M. Serum Levels of Vitamin D in Diabetic Patients With and Without Retinopathy. J Ophthalmic Vis Res. 2020;15(2):172–7. doi: 10.18502/jovr.v15i2.6734 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Luo B-A, Gao F, Qin L-L. The Association between Vitamin D Deficiency and Diabetic Retinopathy in Type 2 Diabetes: A Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies. Nutrients. 2017;9(3):307. doi: 10.3390/nu9030307 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Ashinne B, Rajalakshmi R, Anjana RM, Narayan KMV, Jayashri R, Mohan V, et al. Association of serum vitamin D levels and diabetic retinopathy in Asian Indians with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2018;139:308–13. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2018.02.040 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Payne JF, Ray R, Watson DG, Delille C, Rimler E, Cleveland J, et al. Vitamin D insufficiency in diabetic retinopathy. Endocr Pract. 2012;18(2):185–93. doi: 10.4158/EP11147.OR [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Trott M, Driscoll R, Iraldo E, Pardhan S. Associations between vitamin D status and sight threatening and non-sight threatening diabetic retinopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Diabetes Metab Disord. 2022;21(1):1177–84. doi: 10.1007/s40200-022-01059-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Zhang J, Upala S, Sanguankeo A. Relationship between vitamin D deficiency and diabetic retinopathy: a meta-analysis. Can J Ophthalmol. 2017;52(2):S39–44. doi: 10.1016/j.jcjo.2017.09.026 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Alam U, Amjad Y, Chan AWS, Asghar O, Petropoulos IN, Malik RA. Vitamin D Deficiency Is Not Associated with Diabetic Retinopathy or Maculopathy. J Diabetes Res. 2016;2016:6156217. doi: 10.1155/2016/6156217 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Bonakdaran S, Shoeibi N. Is there any correlation between vitamin D insufficiency and diabetic retinopathy?. Int J Ophthalmol. 2015;8(2):326–31. doi: 10.3980/j.issn.2222-3959.2015.02.20 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.He R, Hu Y, Zeng H, Zhao J, Zhao J, Chai Y, et al. Vitamin D deficiency increases the risk of peripheral neuropathy in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2017;33(2):e2820. doi: 10.1002/dmrr.2820 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Niu Y, Li J, Peng R, Zhao X, Wu J, Tang Q. Low vitamin D is associated with diabetes peripheral neuropathy in older but not in young and middle-aged patients. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2019;35(6):e3162. doi: 10.1002/dmrr.3162 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Zhang B, Zhao W, Tu J, Wang X, Hao Y, Wang H, et al. The relationship between serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration and type 2 diabetic peripheral neuropathy: A systematic review and a meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019;98(48):e18118. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000018118 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Huang W, Gu L, Wang J, Wang Y, Cao F, Jin T. Causal association between vitamin D and diabetic neuropathy: a Mendelian randomization analysis. Endocrine. 2023;1–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Felício JS, de Rider Britto HA, Cortez PC, de Souza Resende F, de Lemos MN, de Moraes LV, et al. Association Between 25(OH)Vitamin D, HbA1c and Albuminuria in Diabetes Mellitus: Data From a Population-Based Study (VIDAMAZON). Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2021;12:723502. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2021.723502 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Özgür Y. Relationship between Vitamin D Deficiency, Albuminuria, Peripheral Artery Disease and 5-year Mortality in Chronic Kidney Disease. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2021;31(6):644–50. doi: 10.29271/jcpsp.2021.06.644 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Derakhshanian H, Shab-Bidar S, Speakman JR, Nadimi H, Djafarian K. Vitamin D and diabetic nephropathy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Nutrition. 2015;31(10):1189–94. doi: 10.1016/j.nut.2015.04.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Zomorodian SA, Shafiee M, Karimi Z, Masjedi F, Roshanshad A. Assessment of the relationship between 25-hydroxyvitamin D and albuminuria in type 2 diabetes mellitus. BMC Endocr Disord. 2022;22(1):171. doi: 10.1186/s12902-022-01088-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Darraj H, Badedi M, Poore K, Hummadi A, Khawaji A, Solan Y. Vitamin D deficiency and glycemic control among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in Jazan city, Saudi Arabia. Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes. 2019;12:853–62. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Salih YA, Rasool MT, Ahmed IH, Mohammed AA. Impact of vitamin D level on glycemic control in diabetes mellitus type 2 in Duhok. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2021;64:102208. doi: 10.1016/j.amsu.2021.102208 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Alaidarous TA, Alkahtani NM, Aljuraiban GS, Abulmeaty MMA. Impact of the Glycemic Control and Duration of Type 2 Diabetes on Vitamin D Level and Cardiovascular Disease Risk. J Diabetes Res. 2020;2020:8431976. doi: 10.1155/2020/8431976 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Al-Shoumer KAAS, Al-Asoosi AA, Ali AH, Nair VS. Does insulin resistance in type 2 diabetes alter vitamin D status? Prim Care Diabetes. 2013;7(4):283–7. doi: 10.1016/j.pcd.2013.04.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Luo C, Wong J, Brown M, Hooper M, Molyneaux L, Yue DK. Hypovitaminosis D in Chinese type 2 diabetes: lack of impact on clinical metabolic status and biomarkers of cellular inflammation. Diab Vasc Dis Res. 2009;6(3):194–9. doi: 10.1177/1479164109337974 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Chen X, Wan Z, Geng T, Zhu K, Li R, Lu Q, et al. Vitamin D Status, Vitamin D Receptor Polymorphisms, and Risk of Microvascular Complications Among Individuals With Type 2 Diabetes: A Prospective Study. Diabetes Care. 2023;46(2):270–7. doi: 10.2337/dc22-0513 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Xuan S, Jin Z, Zhe W, Huai-en B, Chun-ying T, Dong-jun W, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized control trials of vitamin D supplementation in diabetic nephropathy. Int J Diabetes Dev Ctries. 2022;43(1):4–11. doi: 10.1007/s13410-022-01108-w [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Balk SJ, Council on Environmental Health, Section on Dermatology. Ultraviolet radiation: a hazard to children and adolescents. Pediatrics. 2011;127(3):e791–817. doi: 10.1542/peds.2010-3502 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Santhi Silambanan

26 Feb 2025

PONE-D-24-48334Impact of Vitamin D on Glycemic Control and Microvascular Complications in Type 2 Diabetes: A Cross-Sectional StudyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ahi,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 12 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Santhi Silambanan, MD, DNB

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed:

- Microvascular Complications and Foot Care: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2021 - https://doi.org/10.2337/dc21-S011

- Ultraviolet Radiation: A Hazard to Children and Adolescents  - https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2010-3502

In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed.

3. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. For studies involving human research participant data or other sensitive data, we encourage authors to share de-identified or anonymized data. However, when data cannot be publicly shared for ethical reasons, we allow authors to make their data sets available upon request. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. 

Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., a Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board, etc.). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible.

Please update your Data Availability statement in the submission form accordingly.

4. In this instance it seems there may be acceptable restrictions in place that prevent the public sharing of your minimal data. However, in line with our goal of ensuring long-term data availability to all interested researchers, PLOS’ Data Policy states that authors cannot be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-acceptable-data-sharing-methods).

Data requests to a non-author institutional point of contact, such as a data access or ethics committee, helps guarantee long term stability and availability of data. Providing interested researchers with a durable point of contact ensures data will be accessible even if an author changes email addresses, institutions, or becomes unavailable to answer requests.

Before we proceed with your manuscript, please also provide non-author contact information (phone/email/hyperlink) for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If no institutional body is available to respond to requests for your minimal data, please consider if there any institutional representatives who did not collaborate in the study, and are not listed as authors on the manuscript, who would be able to hold the data and respond to external requests for data access? If so, please provide their contact information (i.e., email address). Please also provide details on how you will ensure persistent or long-term data storage and availability.

5. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager.

6. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 3 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

7. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 

8. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The author could comment on the burden of type 2 Diabetes mellitus in the study area.

The author could mention the status of Vitamin D Deficiency in the study area.

Methods 2nd paragraph can include exclusion criteria as the subheading.

If the BP was high, the author could mention whether a single reading or a series of readings were taken and the average noted down.

Was there any sample size calculation done? Or is any minimum sample size required calculated?

The author could mention if only newly diagnosed T2DM patients or patients with existing T2DM were included in the inclusion criteria.

Reviewer #2: Please mention what was the basis for the sample size calculation.

What were the food habits of the study participants? Veg/non-veg/Vegan??

Discussion needs more recent article citation and literature description.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reports.docx

pone.0324729.s006.docx (13.1KB, docx)
PLoS One. 2025 May 28;20(5):e0324729. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0324729.r003

Author response to Decision Letter 1


12 Apr 2025

Response to Editor

Dear Editorial board of "PLOS ONE"

Following your letter regarding the manuscript " Impact of vitamin D on glycemic control and microvascular complications in type 2 diabetes: A cross-sectional study" submitted to the PLOS ONE for publication, we are sending the rebuttal letter explaining the modifications applied on the manuscript. We have implemented required revisions to the manuscript and we believe that the current revised paper complies with the referee’s constructive remarks. Besides addressing the critiques of the reviewers, we have evaluated the manuscript to add the suggested discussions by the reviewers. We found the excellent comments of the editor and reviewer very constructive and insightful, and we appreciate the time that you and the reviewer have devoted to assess our work. Therefore, all the helpful suggestions and comments have been fully considered. We appreciate the respectful editorial board and the reviewers for devoting their time and providing constructive and thoughtful critiques towards our primary manuscript. The revisions, starting with the last submission, are addressed below.

The responses to the comments of the editor and reviewer can be found as follows.

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Comment 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Author response - 1: We sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback. In response to your comments, we have carefully revised the manuscript to meet PLOS ONE's guidelines. The following changes have been made:

• The title format has been adjusted to comply with PLOS ONE standards.

• Author names and affiliations have been updated to the requested format.

• Section headings have been modified to align with the journal’s preferred style.

• Figure legends and tables have been repositioned within the text, placed after their first reference, as per PLOS ONE guidelines.

• The abstract has been revised to meet the journal’s requirements.

Comment 2. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed:

- Microvascular Complications and Foot Care: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2021 - https://doi.org/10.2337/dc21-S011

- Ultraviolet Radiation: A Hazard to Children and Adolescents - https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2010-3502

In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed.

Author response - 2: We sincerely appreciate your careful attention to this matter. We have thoroughly reviewed the manuscript and addressed the instances of overlapping text with the cited publications. The following corrective actions have been taken:

1. Proper Citation: All relevant sources, including the two referenced publications, have been appropriately cited where necessary.

2. Rephrasing: Any duplicated text outside the Methods section has been either rephrased for originality or properly quoted with attribution.

3. Originality Check: We have ensured that all remaining content is presented in our own words, with proper citations where prior work is referenced.

Comment 3. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. For studies involving human research participant data or other sensitive data, we encourage authors to share de-identified or anonymized data. However, when data cannot be publicly shared for ethical reasons, we allow authors to make their data sets available upon request. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., a Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board, etc.). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible.

Please update your Data Availability statement in the submission form accordingly.

Author response - 3: We appreciate the journal’s policy on data sharing and fully support transparency in research. However, due to the sensitive nature of the data in this study, we are unable to publicly share the dataset for the following reasons:

1. Patient Privacy Concerns: Even after de-identification, the data contain potentially identifiable patient information, making unrestricted sharing ethically problematic.

2. Ethical Restrictions: The Ethics Committee of Jahrom University of Medical Sciences has imposed restrictions on public data sharing to protect participant confidentiality.

Data Access Process:

While the data cannot be made publicly available, qualified researchers may request access through a formal application to: Jahrom University of Medical Science (info@jums.ac.ir)

We have updated the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript to reflect these restrictions and provide clear instructions for data requests.

Thank you for your understanding. Please let us know if further clarification is needed.

Comment 4. In this instance it seems there may be acceptable restrictions in place that prevent the public sharing of your minimal data. However, in line with our goal of ensuring long-term data availability to all interested researchers, PLOS’ Data Policy states that authors cannot be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-acceptable-data-sharing-methods).

Data requests to a non-author institutional point of contact, such as a data access or ethics committee, helps guarantee long term stability and availability of data. Providing interested researchers with a durable point of contact ensures data will be accessible even if an author changes email addresses, institutions, or becomes unavailable to answer requests.

Before we proceed with your manuscript, please also provide non-author contact information (phone/email/hyperlink) for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If no institutional body is available to respond to requests for your minimal data, please consider if there any institutional representatives who did not collaborate in the study, and are not listed as authors on the manuscript, who would be able to hold the data and respond to external requests for data access? If so, please provide their contact information (i.e., email address). Please also provide details on how you will ensure persistent or long-term data storage and availability.

Author Response - 4: Thank you for your guidance. We have updated our data availability statement and provide the following non-author institutional contact and details for long-term data access:

________________________________________

Revised Data Availability Statement:

"Due to ethical restrictions imposed by the Ethics Committee of Jahrom University of Medical Sciences to protect participant confidentiality, the data underlying this study cannot be made publicly available. Qualified researchers may request access to the de-identified minimal dataset by contacting the university's independent Ethics Committee at info@jums.ac.ir (with email title: Access to research data) or +98 (715) 4474992. Requests will be reviewed for compliance with ethical standards and institutional regulations. The data will be stored securely in the university’s institutional repository, which guarantees long-term preservation and accessibility for approved researchers, irrespective of author availability."

Comment 5. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager.

Author Response - 5: Thank you for your comment. We confirm that the corresponding author’s ORCID iD has been validated in Editorial Manager as required. The steps outlined were followed to ensure compliance:

1. The corresponding author’s ORCID iD (0000-0001-9622-2895) has been updated in the Editorial Manager system.

2. The ORCID record is now fully linked and updated in the submission profile.

We have ensured all requirements are met and appreciate your guidance.

Comment 6. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 3 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

Author Response - 6: Thank you for highlighting this oversight. We confirm that Table 3 is now referenced in the final paragraph of the Results section. The manuscript has been updated accordingly.

Comment 7. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Author Response – 7: Thank you for your feedback. We have added captions for the Supporting Information file at the end of the manuscript and updated all in-text citations to reference these materials appropriately.

Comment 8. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Author Response – 8: Thank you for your valuable comment. We have carefully reviewed the reference list to ensure its completeness and accuracy. We confirm that none of the cited papers in our manuscript have been retracted. All references are current and relevant to the study. Also, the reference list has been verified for proper formatting, completeness, and alignment with in-text citations. No changes were required.

Peer reviewers’ comments and Authors′ responses

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1:

Author: We sincerely appreciate your insightful feedback and constructive comments, which have been invaluable in enhancing the quality of our manuscript. Your suggestions have significantly strengthened the clarity, rigor, and presentation of our work. We have carefully addressed each of your points.

R1-comment-1: The author could comment on the burden of type 2 Diabetes mellitus in the study area.

Author-Response-1: Thank you for your valuable comment. We have added a paragraph addressing this point (Paragraph 3 of the Introduction).

R1-comment-2: The author could mention the status of Vitamin D Deficiency in the study area.

Author-Response-2: This point has been addressed in paragraph 4 of the introduction. Thank you for your comment.

R1-comment-3: Methods 2nd paragraph can include exclusion criteria as the subheading.

Author-Response-3: Many thanks for noting this issue, we added exclusion criteria as a subheading in the 2nd paragraph of methods.

R1-comment-4: If the BP was high, the author could mention whether a single reading or a series of readings were taken and the average noted down.

Author-Response-4: Thank you for raising this important point. In our study, blood pressure (BP) measurements were performed in accordance with the latest international protocols. For patients with elevated BP, two or more readings were taken at 1–2-minute intervals after the initial 10-minute rest period, and the average of these readings was recorded. This approach aligns with the 2023 World Health Organization(1) (WHO) and American Heart Association(2) (AHA) guidelines, which emphasize the importance of multiple BP measurements to confirm hypertension and reduce variability.

For hypertensive patients or those with high initial readings, according to current guidelines, we rechecked the device and cuff size and also patients’ proper positioning. In addition we asked the patient for out-of-office checking the BP if feasible or another session BP measurement in the office.

We have clarified this methodology in the revised m

Attachment

Submitted filename: rebuttal letter.docx

pone.0324729.s008.docx (59.9KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Santhi Silambanan

30 Apr 2025

Impact of Vitamin D on Glycemic Control and Microvascular Complications in Type 2 Diabetes: A Cross-Sectional Study

PONE-D-24-48334R1

Dear Dr. Ahi,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Santhi Silambanan, MD, DNB

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Santhi Silambanan

PONE-D-24-48334R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ahi,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Santhi Silambanan

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. The study design and results of study patients.

    (JPG)

    pone.0324729.s001.jpg (72.9KB, jpg)
    S2A Fig. Distribution of key baseline characteristics of the study participants (N = 199).

    Age Distribution: Displays the frequency of participants by age (mean age = 56.79 ± 10.8 years). BMI Distribution: Shows the frequency of participants by body mass index (mean BMI = 28.91 kg/m²). FBS (Fasting Blood Sugar) Distribution: Depicts the frequency of participants based on their fasting blood sugar levels. HbA1C Distribution: Illustrates the frequency of participants by HbA1C percentage, an indicator of glycemic control.

    (JPG)

    pone.0324729.s002.jpg (206.9KB, jpg)
    S2B Fig. Vitamin D status and its association with health conditions among the participants.

    This bar chart shows the counts of patients categorized by vitamin D status (deficiency, insufficiency, and sufficiency) and the presence or absence of specific health conditions, including macroalbuminuria, retinopathy, and neuropathy. Deficiency, insufficiency, and sufficiency are compared for each health condition to highlight the relationship between vitamin D status and the prevalence of microvascular complications.

    (JPG)

    pone.0324729.s003.jpg (158.4KB, jpg)
    S3A Fig. Comparison of Vitamin D Levels According to Glycemic Control: Vitamin D levels are compared across three glycemic control categories: appropriately controlled (HbA1C < 7.5%), inappropriately controlled (HbA1C ≥ 7.5% and < 8%), and uncontrolled (HbA1C ≥ 8%).

    The Kruskal-Wallis test was used for statistical analysis. *p < 0.05 for comparisons between appropriately controlled vs. inappropriately controlled and vs. uncontrolled groups. Though significant, p-values are not shown in the figure.

    (JPG)

    pone.0324729.s004.jpg (147.2KB, jpg)
    S3B Fig. Comparison of Vitamin D Levels According to Albuminuric Stages: Vitamin D levels are compared across three stages of albuminuria: normoalbuminuria (< 30 mg/g creatinine), microalbuminuria (≥ 30 mg/g and < 300 mg/g creatinine), and macroalbuminuria (≥ 300 mg/g creatinine).

    The Kruskal-Wallis test was used for statistical analysis. *p < 0.05 for comparisons between normoalbuminuria vs. microalbuminuria and macroalbuminuria. Although significant, p-values are not displayed in the figure.

    (JPG)

    pone.0324729.s005.jpg (148.1KB, jpg)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: response to initial review.pdf

    pone.0324729.s007.pdf (506.2KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Reports.docx

    pone.0324729.s006.docx (13.1KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: rebuttal letter.docx

    pone.0324729.s008.docx (59.9KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    Due to ethical restrictions imposed by the Ethics Committee of Jahrom University of Medical Sciences to protect participant confidentiality, the data underlying this study cannot be made publicly available. Qualified researchers may request access to the de-identified minimal dataset by contacting the university's independent Ethics Committee at info@jums.ac.ir (with email title: Access to research data) or +98 (715) 4474992. Requests will be reviewed for compliance with ethical standards and institutional regulations. The data will be stored securely in the university’s institutional repository, which guarantees long-term preservation and accessibility for approved researchers, irrespective of author availability.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES