4.5 Review

Effects of dietary fibre type on blood pressure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of healthy individuals

期刊

JOURNAL OF HYPERTENSION
卷 33, 期 5, 页码 897-911

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/HJH.0000000000000515

关键词

beta-glucans; blood pressure; cardiovascular disease risk; fibre; meta-analysis; systematic review

资金

  1. Kellogg's
  2. Department of Health for England
  3. MRC [MR/L01629X/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. Medical Research Council [MR/L01629X/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To determine the effect of different types of dietary fibre on SBP and DBP. Methods: A systematic review of the literature and a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials using random-effects models. Eligibility criteria for studies included randomized controlled trials of at least 6 weeks duration, testing a fibre isolate or fibre-rich diet against a control or placebo published between 1 January 1990 and 1 December 2013. Results: Twenty-eight trials met the inclusion criteria and reported fibre intake and SBP and/or DBP. Eighteen trials were included in a meta-analysis. Studies were categorized into 1 of 12 fibre-type categories. The pooled estimates for all fibre types were -0.9 mmHg [95% confidence interval (CI) -2.5 to 0.6 mmHg] and -0.7 mmHg (95% CI -1.9 to 0.5 mmHg) for SBP and DBP, respectively. The median difference in total fibre was 6 g. Analyses of specific fibre types concluded that diets rich in beta-glucans reduce SBP by 2.9 mmHg (95% CI 0.9 to 4.9 mmHg) and DBP by 1.5 mmHg (95% CI 0.2 to 2.7 mmHg) for a median difference in beta-glucans of 4 g. Heterogeneity for individual fibre types was generally low. Conclusions: Higher consumption of beta-glucan fibre is associated with lower SBP and DBP. The results of this review are consistent with recommendations to increase consumption of foods rich in dietary fibre, but some additional emphasis on sources of beta-glucans, such as oats and barley, may be warranted.

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