4.5 Article

Blood pressure response to fish oil supplementation: metaregression analysis of randomized trials

期刊

JOURNAL OF HYPERTENSION
卷 20, 期 8, 页码 1493-1499

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00004872-200208000-00010

关键词

blood pressure; fish oil; n-3 fatty acids; randomized trial; metaregression analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective The antihypertensive effect of fish oil was estimated from randomized trials using metaregression analysis. Modification of the blood pressure (BP) effect by age, gender, blood pressure, and body mass index was examined. Methods A total of 90 randomized trials of fish oil and BP were identified through MEDLINE (1966- March 2001). Trials with co-interventions, patient populations, non-placebo controls, or duration of < 2 weeks were excluded. A total of 36 trials (50 strata) were included, 22 of which had a double-blind design. Original reports were retrieved for data collection on sample size, study design, duration, fish oil dose, BP changes and baseline characteristics of trial populations. Pooled BP estimates were obtained by metaregression analysis, weighted for trial sample sizes. Stratified analyses according to population characteristics were performed. Results Intake of fish oil was high in most trials (median dose: 3.7 g/day). Fish oil reduced systolic BP by 2.1 mmHg [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.0, 3.2; P < 0.01] and diastolic BP by 1.6 mmHg (95% Cl: 1.0. 2.2; P < 0.01). Restricting the analysis to double-blind trials yielded BP reductions of 1.7 mmHg (95% CI: 0.3, 3.1) and 1.5 mmHg (95% CI: 0.6, 2.3), respectively. BP effects tended to be larger in populations that were older (> 45 years) and in hypertensive populations (BP greater than or equal to 140/90 mmHg). Conclusions High intake of fish oil may lower BP, especially in older and hypertensive subjects. The antihypertensive effect of lower doses of fish oil (<0.5 g/day) however, remains to be established. (C) 2002 Lippincott Williams Wilkins.

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

4.5
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