Glycemic index, glycemic load, and blood pressure: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
EL Evans C, et al.

This study was performed to find out the relationship between dietary glycemic index (GI) and glycemic load (GL) with systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) in healthy individuals. This review of healthy individuals demonstrated that a lower glycemic diet may lead to significant reductions in blood pressure. However, many of the trials included in the investigation reported important sources of bias.

Methods

  • For this study, they designed a systematic review and meta-analysis.
  • This study was done to assess the data from the randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
  • Databases were looked for eligible RCTs in 2 phases. MEDLINE, Embase, CAB Abstracts, BIOSIS, ISI Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched from January 1990 to December 2009.
  • An updated search was undertaken with the utilization of MEDLINE and Embase from January 2010 to September 2016.
  • Trials were included if they reported author-defined high- and low-GI or -GL diets and blood pressure, were of ≥ 6 wk span, and comprised healthy participants without chronic conditions.
  • Information were extracted and examined with the utilization of Stata statistical software.
  • Pooled estimates and 95% CIs were ascertained with the utilization of weighted mean differences and random-effects models.

Results

  • In this study, Information were extracted from 14 trials including 1097 participants.
  • Thirteen trials gave data on differences in GI between control and intervention arms.
  • A median reduction in GI of 10 units decreased the overall pooled estimates for SBP and DBP by 1.1 mm Hg (95% CI: -0.3, 2.5 mm Hg; P = 0.11) and 1.3 mm Hg (95% CI: 0.2 mm Hg, 2.3; P = 0.02), respectively.
  • They observed 9 trials reported data on differences in GL between arms.
  • A median reduction in GL of 28 units decreased the overall pooled estimates for SBP and DBP by 2.0 mm Hg (95% CI: 0.2, 3.8 mm Hg; P = 0.03) and 1.4 mm Hg (95% CI: 0.1, 2.6 mm Hg; P = 0.03), respectively.

Journal Abstract
Story Source

Comments Are Closed