Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23403873›Full record

ReviewEuropean journal of clinical nutrition2013

Is glycaemic index (GI) a valid measure of carbohydrate quality?

T M S Wolever

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in European journal of clinical nutrition, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

41 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

T M S WoleverDepartment of Nutritional Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. thomas.wolever@utoronto.ca

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research MOP-79382
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent criticisms of the glycaemic index (GI) focus on its validity with assertions that GI methodology is not valid, GI values are inaccurate and imprecise, GI does not predict what foods are healthy and that whole grain and fibre are better markers of carbohydrate quality than GI. None of the critics provide sound reasons for rejecting GI because some of their arguments are based on flagrant errors in understanding and interpretation while others are not supported by current data or are inconsistent with other nutritional recommendations. This paper addresses current criticisms of GI and outlines reasons why GI is valid: (1) GI methodology is accurate and precise enough for practical use; (2) GI is a property of foods; and (3) GI is biologically meaningful and relevant to virtually everyone. Current dietary guidelines recommend increased consumption of whole grains and dietary fibre but do not mention GI. However, this is illogical because the evidence that GI affects health outcomes is at least as good or better than that for whole grains and fibre. GI is a novel concept from a regulatory point of view and a number of problems need to be addressed to successfully translate GI knowledge into practice. The problems are not insurmountable but no progress can be made until bias and misunderstanding about GI can be overcome and there is better agreement about what is the actual state of knowledge on GI so that the real issues can be identified and addressed.

Indexed as

Dietary CarbohydratesGlycemic IndexNutrition PolicyBlood GlucoseDietHumansValidation Studies as TopicBlood GlucoseDietary Carbohydrates

Identifiers

PMID23403873

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.