-
1.
Effects of cashew nut consumption on body composition and glycemic indices: A meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trials.
Jamshidi, S, Moradi, Y, Nameni, G, Mohsenpour, MA, Vafa, M
Diabetes & metabolic syndrome. 2021;(2):605-613
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS Present meta-analysis and systematic review was conducted to synthesis a definitive conclusion from previous randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs). METHODS A comprehensive search was done up to July 2020, in order to extract RCTs which investigated the effect of cashew nut on weight, body mass index (BMI), waist circumference (WC), fasting blood sugar (FBS), insulin, and Homeostatic Model Assessment for Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR). Weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to estimate effect size. Meta regression analysis was done to identify probable sources of heterogeneity. RESULTS Six clinical trials with 521 participants were included. Combined effect sizes demonstrated no effect of cashew consumption on weight (WMD): 0.02, 95% CI: -1.04, 1.09, P > 0.05), BMI (WMD: 0.1, 95% CI: -0.72, 0.74, P > 0.05), and WC (WMD: -0.13, 95% CI: -1.97, 1.70, P > 0.05). Results were also not significant for FBS (WMD: 3.58, 95% CI: -3.92, 11.08, P > 0.05), insulin (WMD: -0.19, 95% CI: -1.63, 1.25, P > 0.05), and HOMA-IR (WMD: 0.25, 95% CI: -0.55, 1.06, P > 0.05). CONCLUSION The sum up, incorporating cashew into the diet has no significant effect on body composition or modifying glycemic indices.
-
2.
Effects of Cynara scolymus L. on glycemic indices:A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.
Jalili, C, Moradi, S, Babaei, A, Boozari, B, Asbaghi, O, Lazaridi, AV, Hojjati Kermani, MA, Miraghajani, M
Complementary therapies in medicine. 2020;:102496
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Cynara scolymus L. (common artichoke) and its products have been considered as potential phytotherapeutic agents for various conditions, such as cardiovascular, hepatic and gastric diseases, among others. Until now, the effects of artichoke and artichoke products administration on glycemic indices have not been sufficiently appraised. The present study evaluated the effects of artichoke and artichoke products administration on the glycemic indices. METHODS Clinical trials were identified in the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase and Scopus databases; to infinity until 15 March 2020. Weighted mean differences (WMD) were pooled using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity, sensitivity analysis and publication bias were reported using standard methods. RESULTS Pooled analysis of nine Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), demonstrated that the administration of artichoke and artichoke products led to a significant reduced fasting blood sugar (FBS) (WMD: -5.28 mg/dl, 95 % CI: -8.95, -1.61; p = 0.005). However, other glycemic indeces including fasting insulin (WMD: -0.45 μIU/dL, 95 % CI: -1.14, 0.25; p = 0.20), HOMA-IR (MD: -0.25, 95 % CI: -0.57, 0.07; p = 0.12) or Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) (WMD: -0.09, 95 % CI: -0.20, 0.02; p = 0.09) did not alter after the administration of artichoke and artichoke products. A subgroup analysis comparing the kind of intervention, revealed that just the supplementation of artichoke and artichoke products, in a noco-supplementation form, was efficacy for the reduction of Homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) (WMD: -0.52, 95 % CI: -0.85, -0.19; p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS The supplementation of artichoke and artichoke products can significantly reduce the FBS concentrations in humans. Moreover, these outcomes suggested that just the supplementation of artichoke and artichoke products is more effective in the reduction of HOMA-IR levels than the co-supplementation form. However, additional clinical trials with longer study periods are necessitated to obtain a robust conclusion for producing new guidelines as part of a healthy diet.
-
3.
A systematic review and meta-analysis: Vinegar consumption on glycaemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus.
Cheng, LJ, Jiang, Y, Wu, VX, Wang, W
Journal of advanced nursing. 2020;(2):459-474
Abstract
AIM: To systematically review the effectiveness of vinegar consumption in improving glycaemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. DESIGN A systematic review and meta-analysis. REVIEW SOURCES The CINAHL, Excerpta Medica database (EMBASE), Medline, PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane databases were searched in April 2019. Interventional studies published in the English language, from inception to 15 April 2019, were included. REVIEW METHODS Two investigators independently assessed the quality of the studies, discussed their findings to reach consensus and complied with the standards of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Random-effects meta-analysis was conducted in Review Manager 5.3.5 to assess the effect size. A series of subgroup and sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the causes of heterogeneity. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS A total of six relevant studies, including 317 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, were selected from 356 studies identified through electronic searches and reference lists. The meta-analysis showed significantly better fasting blood glucose and haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level. In secondary analyses, there was a remarkable reduction in total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein postintervention. CONCLUSION Vinegar content varied across the studies, and the sample sizes in the included studies were relatively small. Therefore, caution should be exercised when trying to extrapolate the results to a larger population. IMPACT Existing reviews are limited to narrative synthesis, lacking critical appraisal, heterogenous outcomes, nor any report of fasting blood glucose and HbA1c. This meta-analysis review extends the evidence on the beneficial effects of vinegar on glycaemic control as measured by HbA1c and fasting blood glucose. Clinicians could incorporate vinegar consumption as part of their dietary advice for patients with diabetes.
-
4.
Lowering breakfast glycemic index and glycemic load attenuates postprandial glycemic response: A systematically searched meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Toh, DWK, Koh, ES, Kim, JE
Nutrition (Burbank, Los Angeles County, Calif.). 2020;:110634
Abstract
Low glycemic index (GI) diets are recommended to reduce the risk for chronic diseases by managing postprandial elevations in blood glucose and insulin. However, to our knowledge, a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to investigate this relationship and interpret its clinical relevance has yet to be performed. This review aims to assess the effect of low versus high GI breakfast meals on postprandial glycemic and insulinemic responses in adults. Two researchers independently screened 1100 articles from PubMed, CINAHL, Medline, and Cochrane databases and extracted data from 11 qualified RCTs. Meta-analyses were performed to calculate overall effect sizes of postintervention blood glucose concentration change values at different time points (60, 90, and 120 min) using a random-effects model, reporting their weighted mean differences (WMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Low GI breakfasts significantly reduced postprandial blood glucose concentrations at all time points: 60 min (WMD: -1.32 mmol/L; 95% CIs, -1.64 to -0.99), 90 min (WMD: -0.74 mmol/L; 95% CI, -0.92 to -0.56), and 120 min (WMD: -0.44 mmol/L; 95% CI, -0.63 to -0.26). Further analyses not only indicated similar trends following the stratification of studies according to the glycemic load, but also showed a more pronounced decline in glycemic response among individuals with metabolic impairments. These results highlight the benefits of lowering breakfast meal GI to provide clinically relevant reductions in acute glucose response.
-
5.
The Role of Health Literacy in Diabetes Knowledge, Self-Care, and Glycemic Control: a Meta-analysis.
Marciano, L, Camerini, AL, Schulz, PJ
Journal of general internal medicine. 2019;(6):1007-1017
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Empirical evidence on how health literacy affects diabetes outcomes is inconsistent. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to quantitatively summarize the findings on the associations between health literacy and diabetes knowledge, self-care activities, and glycemic control as disease-related outcomes, with specific focus on the type of health literacy assessment. DATA SOURCES Nine databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, Communication and Mass Media Complete, PsychInfo, PsychArticles, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, ERIC, Sociology, Embase) were searched for peer-reviewed original research articles published until 31 March 2018. METHODS Studies with type 1 and/or type 2 diabetes patients aged 18 or older, providing a calculable baseline effect size for functional health literacy and diabetes knowledge, self-care activities, or HbA1C were included. RESULTS The meta-analysis includes 61 studies with a total of 18,905 patients. The majority were conducted in the USA, on type 2 diabetes patients, and used the S-TOFHLA as a performance-based or the BHLS as a perception-based measure of functional health literacy. Meta-analytic results show that all three outcomes are related to health literacy. Diabetes knowledge was best predicted by performance-based health literacy measures, self-care by self-report measures, and glycemic control equally by both types of health literacy assessment. DISCUSSION Health literacy plays a substantial role in diabetes knowledge. Findings for the role of health literacy in self-care and glycemic control remain heterogeneous, partly due to the type of health literacy assessment (performance- vs. perception-based). This has implications for the use of health literacy measures in clinical settings and original research. This meta-analysis was limited to functional health literacy and, due to the paucity of studies, did not investigate the role of other dimensions including communicative and critical health literacy.
-
6.
Glycemic index, glycemic load, and depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Salari-Moghaddam, A, Saneei, P, Larijani, B, Esmaillzadeh, A
European journal of clinical nutrition. 2019;(3):356-365
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES Although several studies have investigated the association between dietary Glycemic Index (GI), glycemic load (GL) and depression, results are inconsistent. This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to summarize earlier evidence on the association between dietary GI, GL, and depression. SUBJECTS/METHODS We searched in PubMed/Medline, ISI Web of Knowledge, Scopus, EMBASE, and Google Scholar to identify related articles published until April 2018. Publications that fulfilled the following criteria were included in the current study: (1) publications with participants aged ≥ 18 years; (2) studies that considered GI or GL as the exposure; (3) studies that considered depression as the main outcome or as one of the outcomes; and (4) publications in which odds ratios (ORs) or mean difference were reported as the effect size. Finally, 11 studies, including 6 cross-sectional studies, 2 cohort studies, and 3 clinical trials were considered for inclusion in the systematic review, and 5 cross-sectional studies, 2 cohort studies, and 2 clinical trials (out of 11 studies included in the systematic review) were included in the meta-analysis. The quality of cross-sectional and cohort studies examined by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and the quality of clinical trials examined using Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias tool. We also assessed the quality of evidence with the GRADE system. RESULTS Sample sizes of the included cross-sectional studies ranged from 140 to 87,618 participants, and in total 101,389 participants were included in 6 studies. In total, 85,500 participants were included in 2 cohort studies. Sample sizes of the included clinical trials ranged from 40 to 82 participants, and in total 164 participants were included in three studies. Combining seven effect sizes from five cross-sectional studies, no significant association was observed between dietary GI and odds of depression (OR: 1.01; 95% CI: 0.94, 1.08; I2 = 80.2%; n = 5). We also failed to find any significant association between dietary GL and odds of depression (OR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.84, 1.04; I2 = 42%; n = 5). Combining two effects sizes from two cohort studies, there was a significant positive association between dietary GI and depression (HR: 1.13; 95% CI: 1.02, 1.25; I2 = 86.1%, n = 2). In addition, combining two effect sizes from two clinical trials, we found a significant change in depression score after consumption of a high-GL diet (weighted mean difference (WMD): 0.66; 95% CI: 0.28, 1.04; I2 = 0.0%, n = 2). CONCLUSIONS Summarizing earlier findings, we found no significant association between either dietary GI or GL and odds of depression in cross-sectional studies. However, a significant positive association was observed between dietary GI and depression in cohort studies. In addition, a significant effect of a high-GL diet consumption on risk of depression was seen in clinical trials.
-
7.
Glycemic impact of non-nutritive sweeteners: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Nichol, AD, Holle, MJ, An, R
European journal of clinical nutrition. 2018;(6):796-804
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES Nonnutritive sweeteners (NNSs) are zero- or low-calorie alternatives to nutritive sweeteners, such as table sugars. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was conducted to quantitatively synthesize existing scientific evidence on the glycemic impact of NNSs. SUBJECTS/METHODS PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched. Two authors screened the titles and abstracts of candidate publications. The third author was consulted to resolve discrepancies. Twenty-nine randomized controlled trials, with a total of 741 participants, were included and their quality assessed. NNSs under examination included aspartame, saccharin, steviosides, and sucralose. The review followed the PRISMA guidelines. RESULTS Meta-analysis was performed to estimate and track the trajectory of blood glucose concentrations over time after NNS consumption, and to test differential effects by type of NNS and participants' age, weight, and disease status. In comparison with the baseline, NNS consumption was not found to increase blood glucose level, and its concentration gradually declined over the course of observation following NNS consumption. The glycemic impact of NNS consumption did not differ by type of NNS but to some extent varied by participants' age, body weight, and diabetic status. CONCLUSIONS NNS consumption was not found to elevate blood glucose level. Future studies are warranted to assess the health implications of frequent and chronic NNS consumption and elucidate the underlying biological mechanisms.
-
8.
Effect of pasta in the context of low-glycaemic index dietary patterns on body weight and markers of adiposity: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials in adults.
Chiavaroli, L, Kendall, CWC, Braunstein, CR, Blanco Mejia, S, Leiter, LA, Jenkins, DJA, Sievenpiper, JL
BMJ open. 2018;(3):e019438
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Carbohydrate staples such as pasta have been implicated in the obesity epidemic. It is unclear whether pasta contributes to weight gain or like other low-glycaemic index (GI) foods contributes to weight loss. We synthesised the evidence of the effect of pasta on measures of adiposity. DESIGN Systematic review and meta-analysis using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. DATA SOURCES MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library were searched through 7 February 2017. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES We included randomised controlled trials ≥3 weeks assessing the effect of pasta alone or in the context of low-GI dietary patterns on measures of global (body weight, body mass index (BMI), body fat) and regional (waist circumference (WC), waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), sagittal abdominal diameter (SAD)) adiposity in adults. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Data were pooled using the generic inverse-variance method and expressed as mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs. Heterogeneity was assessed (Cochran Q statistic) and quantified (I2 statistic). GRADE assessed the certainty of the evidence. RESULTS We identified no trial comparisons of the effect of pasta alone and 32 trial comparisons (n=2448 participants) of the effect of pasta in the context of low-GI dietary patterns. Pasta in the context of low-GI dietary patterns significantly reduced body weight (MD=-0.63 kg; 95% CI -0.84 to -0.42 kg) and BMI (MD=-0.26 kg/m2; 95% CI -0.36 to -0.16 kg/m2) compared with higher-GI dietary patterns. There was no effect on other measures of adiposity. The certainty of the evidence was graded as moderate for body weight, BMI, WHR and SAD and low for WC and body fat. CONCLUSIONS Pasta in the context of low-GI dietary patterns does not adversely affect adiposity and even reduces body weight and BMI compared with higher-GI dietary patterns. Future trials should assess the effect of pasta in the context of other 'healthy' dietary patterns. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER NCT02961088; Results.
-
9.
Effect of glycemic index and glycemic load on energy intake in children.
Rouhani, MH, Salehi-Abargouei, A, Azadbakht, L
Nutrition (Burbank, Los Angeles County, Calif.). 2013;(9):1100-5
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Several studies assessed the effect of glycemic index (GI) and glycemic load (GL) on energy intake in children but findings are not consistent in this regard. The aim of this study is to summarize and assess the evidence for the effect of GI and GL on energy intake by conducting a meta-analysis on published randomized clinical trials. METHOD Our search process was conducted in PUBMED, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases. The following keywords were searched in any part of published articles: "glycemic index" OR "glycaemic index" OR "glycemic load" OR "glycaemic load" OR "energy intake" AND "child" OR "children" OR "adolescent" OR "youth." RESULTS We gathered 5099 articles. Non-clinical trial studies that did not intervene by GI or GL or those not assessing energy intake as a dependent variable and those that were conducted on patients over age 18 y were excluded. Each included study was evaluated three times and the exclusion criteria was checked. Eventually, six studies from 1999 to 2012 met the criteria (213 participants ages 4-17.5 y). There is heterogeneity in the study's participants in the present paper. Children with type 2 diabetes, obesity, or normal-weight children were recruited in different studies. Overall effect of consuming low GI (LGI) and low GL (LGL) meals on energy intake was not significant. Subgroup analysis showed that LGI (not LGL) meals decreased subsequent energy intake, whereas heterogeneity was significant in the LGI group of studies. Although a slight asymmetry was shown by Begg's funnel plot, the Egger's asymmetry was not significant. We did not find any evidence of publication bias for studies assessing the effect of low GI or GL meals on energy intake. CONCLUSION Consuming LGI diet (not LGL) has favorable effect on reducing energy intake and obesity, subsequently.
-
10.
Dietary glycemic index, glycemic load, and the risk of endometrial cancer: a case-control study and meta-analysis.
Galeone, C, Augustin, LS, Filomeno, M, Malerba, S, Zucchetto, A, Pelucchi, C, Montella, M, Talamini, R, Franceschi, S, La Vecchia, C
European journal of cancer prevention : the official journal of the European Cancer Prevention Organisation (ECP). 2013;(1):38-45
Abstract
Carbohydrates and the dietary glycemic index (GI) influence insulin secretion and insulin-like growth factors, and may exert relevant effects on obesity and diabetes, both of which are important risk factors for endometrial cancer. We studied the association between dietary GI and glycemic load (GL) and endometrial cancer using data from an Italian case-control study. This included 454 women with histologically confirmed endometrial cancer and 908 controls admitted to the same hospitals for acute, non-neoplastic conditions. Multivariate odds ratios were obtained after allowance for major potential confounding factors, including noncarbohydrate energy intake. We updated a meta-analysis on this issue, including a recent US cohort study, which contributed about a quarter of all cases, besides our case-control study. In the case-control study, the odds ratios of endometrial cancer for the highest versus the lowest quintile were 1.03 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.67-1.58] for GI and 1.01 (95% CI: 0.64-1.61) for GL. No heterogeneity was found across the strata of diabetes and other selected covariates. The summary risk estimate of endometrial cancer for the highest versus the lowest GI level, obtained from the meta-analysis, was 1.09 (95% CI: 0.92-1.29). The corresponding risk estimate for GL was 1.19 (95% CI: 1.06-1.34). The case-control study showed no association between dietary GI and GL and the risk of endometrial cancer overall and in the strata of relevant covariates, whereas the meta-analysis supported an increased risk for high GL, but not GI.