4.1 Review

Effect of Green Tea on Plasma Adiponectin Levels: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials

期刊

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/07315724.2017.1333470

关键词

Adiponectin; green tea; green tea extract; meta-analysis

资金

  1. Neyshabur University of Medical Sciences
  2. [692305]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Our objective was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of green tea on serum adiponectin concentration. Method: We searched PubMed, ISI Web of Science, Scopus, and the Google Scholar databases up to November 2016. RCTs conducted among human adults studied the effects of green tea and green tea extract on serum adiponectin concentrations as an outcome variable was included. The weighted mean differences and standard deviations (SD) of change in serum adiponectin levels were calculated. The random effects model was used for deriving a summary of mean estimates with their corresponding SDs. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (No. CRD42017057716). Result: Fourteen RCTs were eligible to be included in the systematic review and the meta-analysis. Our analysis showed that green tea did not significantly affect adiponectin concentrations in comparison with placebo (weighted mean difference = -0.02 mu g/ml, 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.41, 0.38; p = 0.936). There was a substantial heterogeneity between studies (I-2 = 91.7%; p < 0.0001). Subgroup analyses based on sex, type of intervention, continent, and body mass index (BMI) could not explain the sources of heterogeneity. Metaregression analyses revealed that the dose and duration of green tea ingestion did not have any effect on adiponectin concentrations. Conclusion: Green tea could not change the circulatory adiponectin levels. The dose and duration of green tea could not change the result. RCTs with longer follow-up periods and higher doses are needed to replicate our results.

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

4.1
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