4.4 Review

Oats and bowel disease: a systematic literature review

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF NUTRITION
卷 112, 期 -, 页码 S31-S43

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0007114514002293

关键词

Oats; Bowel disease; Inflammatory bowel disease; Coeliac disease; Bowel cancer

资金

  1. Quaker Oats Company
  2. Quaker Oats Co.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Whole-grain foods such as oats may protect against colorectal cancer and have benefits on inflammatory bowel disease and coeliac disease. The present study aimed to systematically review the literature describing intervention studies that investigated the effects of oats or oat bran on risk factors for bowel disease. A literature search was conducted using Embase, Medline and the Cochrane library, which identified 654 potential articles. Thirty-eight articles describing twenty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Two studies carried out in participants with a history of colorectal adenomas found no effects of increased oat-bran intake on indirect risk makers for colorectal cancer. One of two interventions with oat bran in patients with ulcerative colitis showed small improvements in the patients' conditions. Most of the eleven studies carried out in adults with coeliac disease showed no negative effects of uncontaminated oat consumption. The fourteen studies carried out in volunteers with no history of bowel disease suggest that oats or oat bran can significantly increase stool weight and decrease constipation, but there is a lack of evidence to support a specific effect of oats on bowel function compared with other cereals. A long-term dietary intake of oats or oat bran could benefit inflammatory bowel disorders, but this remains to be proven. A protective effect on colorectal adenoma and cancer incidence has not yet been convincingly shown. The majority of patients with coeliac disease could consume up to 100 g/d of uncontaminated oats, which would increase the acceptability of, and adherence to, a gluten-free diet.

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

4.4
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