4.2 Review

Effectiveness and safety of selenium supplementation for type 2 diabetes mellitus in adults: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials

期刊

JOURNAL OF HUMAN NUTRITION AND DIETETICS
卷 32, 期 5, 页码 635-645

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jhn.12670

关键词

selenium; type 2 diabetes mellitus; adult; insulin resistance

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background The role of selenium (Se) in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) remains unclear. We systematically assessed the effectiveness and safety of Se supplementation in adults with T2DM. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were searched up to April 2018 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effectiveness of Se against a comparator on DM-related outcomes. Results Four RCTs (241 participants) were included. In individual RCTs, Se supplementation significantly reduced fasting insulin levels [mean difference (MD) = -3.6 mu IU mL(-1); 95% confidence interval (CI) = -6.36 to -0.84; MD = -5.8 mu IU mL(-1); 95% CI = -9.23 to -2.37], homeostasis model of assessment-estimated insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) (MD = -1; 95% CI = -1.79 to -0.21; MD = -1.6; 95% CI, -2.58 to -0.62) and homeostasis model of assessment-estimated B cell function (HOMA-B) (MD = -13.6; 95% CI = -23.4 to -3.8; MD = -22.6; 95% CI = -36.39 to -8.81). No effects of Se were noted on most of the other outcomes of interest. None of the RCTs assessed the mortality, diabetes-related complications, non-high-density lipoprotein (non-HDL), blood pressure and health-related quality of life. The impact on HDL and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) was ambiguous. Only one adverse event (nausea) was reported as a reason for discontinuing the intervention; however, among the studies, the reporting was not accurate. Furthermore, only one RCT reported increase in FPG level in the Se group (MD = 36.38 mg dL(-1); 95% CI = 15.39-57.37). Conclusions Currently, there is no evidence to support the effectiveness of Se supplementation in the T2DM population.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据