Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS Time-restricted feeding (TRF) studies have been summarized in previous systematic reviews, but these were not specific for individuals with excess weight and studies involving early time-restricted feeding (eTRF). This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effect of eTRF on the metabolic profile of adults with excess weight. METHODS Data were extracted from MEDLINE, CENTRAL, LILACS, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, OpenGrey.eu, Greylit, and by manual search. Randomized controlled trials in which the participants were older than 18 years, with a body mass index greater than 25 kg/m2 and that were allocated in an intervention with eTRF were included. The studies should have assessed any of the following outcomes from the metabolic profile: resting metabolic rate, triacylglycerol, total cholesterol, HDL-cholesterol, and LDL-cholesterol, fasting blood glucose, insulin, HOMA-IR, C-reactive protein, Interleukin-6, cortisol, leptin, Ghrelin, Peptide YY and glucagon-like peptide, hemodynamic parameters, and appetite. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane collaboration tool. Publication bias was examined with a funnel plot and Egger's test. GRADE was used to assess the overall quality of evidence. RESULTS Ten articles from nine randomized clinical trials, with 264 individuals, were included in qualitative analysis and eight articles with 184 individuals were included in the meta-analysis. There were significant effects on the fasting blood glucose (WMD: -2.75; 95% CI [-4.59; -0.90] mg/dL; p < 0.01; I2 = 88.7%; 7 studies) and HOMA-IR. (WMD: -0.50; 95% CI [-0.82; -0.19]; p < 0.01; I2 = 50.8%; 4 studies). The other outcomes were not significant. Three studies showed a high risk of bias. Seven outcomes were classified as very low quality and one as low quality. There was evidence of publication bias for fasting blood glucose. CONCLUSIONS Although the eTRF regimen seems to have a beneficial effect on the fasting blood glucose and HOMA-IR of individuals with excess weight, the results of this meta-analysis should be analyzed with caution due to the low-quality evidence.
