4.4 Article

Effects of resistant starch on the indicators of glucose regulation in persons diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and those at risk: A meta-analysis

Journal

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jfpp.14594

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Key RD Project [2019YFD100270403, 2018YFD0400600]
  2. Key R&D Project of Shandong Province [2017YYSP016]
  3. Agricultural Scientific and Technological Innovation Project of Shandong Academy of Agricultural Sciences [CXGC2016B16]
  4. Open Project Program of China-Canada Joint Lab of Food Nutrition and Health, Beijing Technology and Business University (BTBU)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Resistant starch (RS) has significant effects on patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM), but there are no published studies of its effect on persons at risk for T2DM. Randomized controlled trials were searched using the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. This meta-analysis compared the regulatory effects of the RS and placebo dietary interventions on fasting plasma glucose (FPG), fasting insulin (FIN), insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), and glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) in persons diagnosed with T2DM and those at risk. Of the 1,144 studies retrieved, 15 met the inclusion criteria and the sample size was 772. The FIN and HbA1c were significantly decreased in the intervention group, but not in the placebo group. Both FPG and HOMA-IR were improved, but there was no significant difference. Our results suggest that the RS dietary intervention can be used as an auxiliary tool for managing T2DM in diagnosed persons and those at risk. Practical applications RS has drawn extensive attentions in recent years. Studies have found that RS has certain regulatory effects on human blood glucose, insulin, body weight, etc. The meta-analysis on the regulatory effects of RS on the population with dysglycemia can provide a certain reference value for RS as a meaningful regulatory method.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available