4.7 Review

The impact of rice bran oil consumption on the serum lipid profile in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

期刊

CRITICAL REVIEWS IN FOOD SCIENCE AND NUTRITION
卷 62, 期 22, 页码 6005-6015

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/10408398.2021.1895062

关键词

HDL-c; LDL-c; meta-analysis; rice bran oil; systematic review; TC; TG; triacylglycerol

资金

  1. Iran University of Medical Science, Tehran, Iran

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The analysis suggests that consuming rice bran oil can significantly reduce serum total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and triglyceride levels, thus helping to reduce the risk of dyslipidemia/hyperlipidemia.
Dyslipidemia/hyperlipidemia is recognized among the risk factors for lifestyle related diseases. A healthy diet, rich in vegetable oils such as rice bran oil (RBO), may aid to improve serum lipid levels. Thus, the aim of this study was to assess the effects of rice bran oil (RBO) consumption on serum total cholesterol (TC), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-c) and triglyceride (TG) levels in adults. The following online databases were searched for manuscripts published until October 7(th) 2020: PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Clarivate Analytics' Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar. The effect sizes were expressed as weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). A total of 8 eligible trials with 14 effect sizes were included in this meta-analysis. Our analysis revealed that the consumption of RBO significantly decreased serum TC (WMD: -7.29 mg/dL, 95% CI: -11.32, -3.25, P = 0.000), LDL-c (WMD: -7.62 mg/dL, 95% CI: -11.10, -4.14, P = 0.000) and TG (WMD: -9.19 mg/dL, 95% CI: -17.99, -0.38, P = 0.041) levels. So, available evidence suggests that RBO consumption can significantly decrease serum TC, LDL-c and TG levels. Hence, it may play a role in reducing dyslipidemia/hyperlipidemia risk.

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

4.7
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