Dataset Information

Olive oil in the prevention and management of type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies and intervention trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background/objectives

Olive oil (OO) as food is composed mainly of fatty acids and bioactive compounds depending from the extraction method. Both had been discussed as health promoting with still open questions. Thus, we conducted a meta-analysis to illustrate the impact of this food on type 2 diabetes (T2D) by investigating the association between OO intake and risk of T2D, and the effect of OO intake in the management of T2D.

Subjects/methods

Searches were performed in PubMed, Cochrane Library and google scholar. First, we conducted a random effect meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies and trials investigating the association between OO and risk of T2D. Second, a meta-analysis was performed to detect the effects of olive oil on glycemic control in patients with T2D.

Results

Four cohort studies including 15 784 T2D cases and 29 trials were included in the meta-analysis. The highest OO intake category showed a 16% reduced risk of T2D (RR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.77, 0.92) compared with the lowest. However, we observed evidence for a nonlinear relationship. In T2D patients OO supplementation resulted in a significantly more pronounced reduction in HbA1c (MD: -0.27%; 95% CI: -0.37, -0.17) and fasting plasma glucose (MD: -0.44 mmol l^-1; 95% CI -0.66, -0.22) as compared with the control groups.

Conclusions

This meta-analysis provides evidence that the intake of OO could be beneficial for the prevention and management of T2D. This conclusion regards OO as food, and might not been valid for single components comprising this food.

SUBMITTER: Schwingshackl L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5436092 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:AIMS/HYPOTHESIS:The aim of this systematic review was to develop core outcome sets (COSs) for trials evaluating interventions for the prevention or treatment of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). METHODS:We identified previously reported outcomes through a systematic review of the literature. These outcomes were presented to key stakeholders (including patient representatives, researchers and clinicians) for prioritisation using a three-round, e-Delphi study. A priori consensus criteria informed which outcomes were brought forward for discussion at a face-to-face consensus meeting where the COS was finalised. RESULTS:Our review identified 74 GDM prevention and 116 GDM treatment outcomes, which were presented to stakeholders in round 1 of the e-Delphi study. Round 1 was completed by 173 stakeholders, 70% (121/173) of whom went on to complete round 2; 84% (102/121) of round 2 responders completed round 3. Twenty-two GDM prevention outcomes and 30 GDM treatment outcomes were discussed at the consensus meeting. Owing to significant overlap between included prevention and treatment outcomes, consensus meeting stakeholders agreed to develop a single prevention/treatment COS. Fourteen outcomes were included in the final COS. These consisted of six maternal outcomes (GDM diagnosis, adherence to the intervention, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, requirement and type of pharmacological therapy for hyperglycaemia, gestational weight gain and mode of birth) and eight neonatal outcomes (birthweight, large for gestational age, small for gestational age, gestational age at birth, preterm birth, neonatal hypoglycaemia, neonatal death and stillbirth). CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION:This COS will enable future GDM prevention and treatment trials to measure similar outcomes that matter to stakeholders and facilitate comparison and combination of these studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION:This study was registered prospectively with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database: http://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/686/.