Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28985741›Full record

SynthesisNutrition journal2017

Lack of efficacy of pomegranate supplementation for glucose management, insulin levels and sensitivity: evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Haohai Huang, Dan Liao, Guangzhao Chen, Honglang Chen, Yongkun Zhu

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Nutrition journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Therapeutic Potential of Pomegranate in Metabolic Disorders.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2021
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Haohai HuangDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, Dongguan Third People's Hospital, Affiliated Dongguan Shilong People's Hospital of Southern Medical University, Dongguan, Guangdong, China. haohaihuang@hotmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9741-2324
Dan LiaoDepartment of Gynaecology and Obstetric, Dongguan Third People's Hospital, Affiliated Dongguan Shilong People's Hospital of Southern Medical University, Dongguan, Guangdong, China.
Guangzhao ChenDepartment of Pharmacy, Guangdong Province Agricultural Reclamation Central Hospital, Zhanjiang, Guangdong, China.
Honglang ChenSchool of Pharmacy, Guangdong Medical University, Dongguan, Guangdong, China.
Yongkun ZhuDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, Dongguan Third People's Hospital, Affiliated Dongguan Shilong People's Hospital of Southern Medical University, Dongguan, Guangdong, China.
Dongguan People’s Hospital · CNGuangdong Medical College · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe potential glucose-lowering effects of pomegranate have been reported in animal and observational studies, but intervention studies in humans have generated mixed results. In this paper, we aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the precise effects of pomegranate supplementation on measures of glucose control, insulin levels and insulin sensitivity in humans.

methodsComprehensive electronic searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Studies included were RCTs that evaluated the changes in diabetes biomarkers among adults (≥18 years) following pomegranate interventions. The predefined outcomes included fasting blood glucose (FBG), fasting blood insulin (FBI), glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), and homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR). Endpoints were calculated as weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) by using a random-effects model. Publication bias, subgroup analyses, sensitivity analysis and random-effects meta-regression were also performed to explore the influence of covariates on the net changes in fasting glucose and insulin concentrations.

resultsSixteen eligible trials with 538 subjects were included. The pooled estimates suggested that pomegranate did not significantly affect the measures of FBG (WMD, -0.6 mg/dL; 95% CI, -2.79 to 1.58; P=0.59), FBI (WMD, 0.29 μIU/mL; 95% CI, -1.16 to 1.75; P=0.70), HOMA-IR (WMD, -0.04; 95% CI, -0.53 to 0.46; P=0.88) or HbA1c (WMD, -0.11%; 95% CI, -0.39 to -0.18; P=0.46). Overall, significant heterogeneity was detected for FBI and HOMA-IR, but subgroup analysis could not identify factors significantly influencing these parameters. These results were robust in sensitivity analysis, and no significant publication bias was found in the current meta-analysis.

conclusionPomegranate intake did not show a notably favourable effect on improvements in glucose and insulin metabolism. The current evidence suggests that daily pomegranate supplementation is not recommended as a potential therapeutic strategy in glycemic management. Further large-scale RCTs with longer duration are required to confirm these results.

Indexed as

DietBiomarkersBlood GlucoseDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2FruitGlycated HemoglobinHumansInsulinInsulin ResistanceLythraceaeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSensitivity and SpecificityBiomarkersBlood GlucoseGlycated HemoglobinInsulinDiabetes mellitusGlucoseInsulinMeta-analysisPomegranate

Identifiers

PMID28985741
PMCPMC5629805
OpenAlexW2761385331

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.