4.4 Article

Glucose- and glycaemic factor-lowering effects of probiotics on diabetes: a meta-analysis of randomised placebo-controlled trials

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF NUTRITION
卷 115, 期 7, 页码 1167-1177

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0007114516000076

关键词

Probiotics; Glucose; Glycaemic factors

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This meta-analysis examined the effect of probiotics on glucose and glycaemic factors in diabetes and its associated risk factors. All randomised-controlled trials published in English in multiple databases from January 2000 to June 2015 were systematically searched. Only studies that addressed glucose- and glycaemic-related factors as outcome variables were included. The main outcomes of interest in trials were mean changes in glucose, HbA1c, insulin and homoeostasis model assessment-estimated insulin resistance (HOMA-IR). Using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale to assess the quality of studies, a total of eleven studies with 614 subjects were included. The pooled mean difference and effect size with a 95 % CI were extracted using a random-effect model. It was found that there are statistically significant pooled mean differences between the probiotics and the placebo-controlled groups on the reduction of glucose (-052 mmol/l, 95 % CI -092, -011 mmol/l; P=001) and HbA1c (-032 %, 95 % CI -057, -007 %; P=001). There was no statistically significant pooled mean difference between the probiotics and the placebo-controlled groups on the reduction of insulin (-048 mu IU/ml, 95 % CI -134, 038 mu IU/ml; P=027) and HOMA-IR (pooled effect of -044, 95 % CI -157, 070; P=045). Meta-regression analysis identified that probiotics had significant effects on reduction of glucose, HbA1c, insulin and HOMA-IR in participants with diabetes, but not in participants with other risk factors. The present meta-analysis suggested that probiotics may be used as an important dietary supplement in reducing the glucose metabolic factors associated with diabetes.

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

4.4
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