scholarly journals Glycemic index, glycemic load, and blood pressure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2017 ◽  
Vol 105 (5) ◽  
pp. 1176-1190 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlotte EL Evans ◽  
Darren C Greenwood ◽  
Diane E Threapleton ◽  
Chris P Gale ◽  
Christine L Cleghorn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Glycemic Index ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Glycemic Load ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled

scholarly journals Effect of grape products on blood pressure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 627-645
Author(s):  
Omid Asbaghi ◽  
Fatemeh Naeini ◽  
Vihan Moodi ◽  
Moein Najafi ◽  
Mina Shirinbakhshmasoleh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled

The effect of zinc supplementation on blood pressure: a systematic review and dose–response meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 59 (5) ◽  
pp. 1815-1827 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seyed Mohammad Mousavi ◽  
Manije Darooghegi Mofrad ◽  
Israel Júnior Borges do Nascimento ◽  
Alireza Milajerdi ◽  
Tahereh Mokhtari ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Dose Response ◽  
Zinc Supplementation ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled

scholarly journals Effects of walnut intake on blood pressure: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (11) ◽  
pp. 2921-2931 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jiayang Li ◽  
Bo Jiang ◽  
Heitor O. Santos ◽  
Dinamene Santos ◽  
Ambrish Singh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled

scholarly journals Almond Consumption and Risk Factors for Cardiovascular Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. 1076-1088 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle A Lee-Bravatti ◽  
Jifan Wang ◽  
Esther E Avendano ◽  
Ligaya King ◽  
Elizabeth J Johnson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Cardiovascular Disease ◽  
Body Weight ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses

ABSTRACT Evidence suggests that eating nuts may reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating almond consumption and risk factors for CVD. MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau, and previous systematic reviews were searched from 1990 through June 2017 for RCTs of ≥3 wk duration that evaluated almond compared with no almond consumption in adults who were either healthy or at risk for CVD. The most appropriate stratum was selected with an almond dose closer to 42.5 g, with a control most closely matched for macronutrient composition, energy intake, and similar intervention duration. The outcomes included risk factors for CVD. Random-effects model meta-analyses and subgroup meta-analyses were performed. Fifteen eligible trials analyzed a total of 534 subjects. Almond intervention significantly decreased total cholesterol (summary net change: −10.69 mg/dL; 95% CI: −16.75, −4.63 mg/dL), LDL cholesterol (summary net change: −5.83 mg/dL; 95% CI: −9.91, −1.75 mg/dL); body weight (summary net change: −1.39 kg; 95% CI: −2.49, −0.30 kg), HDL cholesterol (summary net change: −1.26 mg/dL; 95% CI: −2.47, −0.05 mg/dL), and apolipoprotein B (apoB) (summary net change: −6.67 mg/dL; 95% CI: −12.63, −0.72 mg/dL). Triglycerides, systolic blood pressure, apolipoprotein A1, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, and lipoprotein (a) showed no difference between almond and control in the main and subgroup analyses. Fasting blood glucose, diastolic blood pressure, and body mass index significantly decreased with almond consumption of >42.5 g compared with ≤42.5 g. Almond consumption may reduce the risk of CVD by improving blood lipids and by decreasing body weight and apoB. Substantial heterogeneity in eligible studies regarding almond interventions and dosages precludes firmer conclusions.

scholarly journals Effects of Dietary Glycemic Index and Glycemic Load on Cardiometabolic and Reproductive Profiles in Women with Polycystic Ovary Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maryam Kazemi ◽  
Amir Hadi ◽  
Roger A Pierson ◽  
Marla E Lujan ◽  
Gordon A Zello ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Polycystic Ovary Syndrome ◽  
Glycemic Index ◽  
Polycystic Ovary ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Glycemic Load ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Ovary Syndrome ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Dietary Glycemic Index

ABSTRACT Women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) exhibit cardiometabolic (e.g., insulin resistance) and associated reproductive disruptions. Lifestyle modification (e.g., diet) is recommended as the first-line therapy to manage PCOS; however, a favorable dietary regimen remains unclear beyond energy restriction. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to summarize evidence on impacts of dietary glycemic index (GI) or glycemic load (GL) on cardiometabolic and reproductive profiles to update the International Evidence-based Guideline for the Assessment and Management of PCOS. Databases of MEDLINE, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched through 30 October 2019, and confirmed on 25 March 2020, to identify RCTs (≥8 wk) comparing the effects of diets with lower (LGI/LGL) and higher (HGI/HGL) GI/GL on glucoregulatory outcomes, lipid profile, anthropometrics, and androgen status in PCOS. The primary outcome was HOMA-IR. Data were pooled by random-effects models and expressed as weighted mean differences and 95% CIs. The risk of bias was assessed by the Cochrane tool. Ten RCTs (n = 403) were eligible. Eight evaluated LGI and 2 LGL diets. LGI diets decreased HOMA-IR (−0.78; −1.20, −0.37; I2 = 86.6%), fasting insulin (−2.39; −4.78, 0.00 μIU/mL; I2 = 76.8%), total cholesterol (−11.13; −18.23, −4.04 mg/dL; I2 = 0.0%), LDL cholesterol (−6.27; −12.01, −0.53 mg/dL; I2 = 0.0%), triglycerides (−14.85; −28.75, −0.95 mg/dL; I2 = 31.0%), waist circumference (−2.81; −4.40, −1.23 cm; I2 = 53.9%), and total testosterone (−0.21; −0.32, −0.09 nmol/L; I2 = 8.6%) compared with HGI diets (all: P ≤ 0.05) without affecting fasting glucose, HDL cholesterol, weight, or free androgen index (all: P ≥ 0.07). Some results were contradictory and only described narratively for 2 RCTs that evaluated LGL diets, since inclusion in meta-analyses was not possible. LGI diets improved glucoregulatory outcomes (HOMA-IR, insulin), lipid profiles, abdominal adiposity, and androgen status, conceivably supporting their inclusion for dietary management of PCOS. Further RCTs should confirm these observations and address whether LGI diets improve more patient-pressing complications, including ovulatory cyclicity, infertility, and cardiovascular disease risk in this high-risk population. This review was registered at www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO as CRD42020175300.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document