Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31243439›Full record

SynthesisAdvances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.)2019

Almond Consumption and Risk Factors for Cardiovascular Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Michelle A Lee-Bravatti, Jifan Wang, Esther E Avendano, Ligaya King, Elizabeth J Johnson, Gowri Raman

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 77 citations in OpenAlex.

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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Michelle A Lee-BravattiTufts University Friedman School of Nutrition and Policy, Boston, MA.
Jifan WangTufts University Friedman School of Nutrition and Policy, Boston, MA.
Esther E AvendanoTufts Clinical Evidence Synthesis Center, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA.
Ligaya KingTufts University Friedman School of Nutrition and Policy, Boston, MA.
Elizabeth J JohnsonJean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University, Boston, MA.
Gowri RamanTufts Clinical Evidence Synthesis Center, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA.
Tufts University · USTufts Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Evidence suggests that eating nuts may reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating almond consumption and risk factors for CVD. MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau, and previous systematic reviews were searched from 1990 through June 2017 for RCTs of ≥3 wk duration that evaluated almond compared with no almond consumption in adults who were either healthy or at risk for CVD. The most appropriate stratum was selected with an almond dose closer to 42.5 g, with a control most closely matched for macronutrient composition, energy intake, and similar intervention duration. The outcomes included risk factors for CVD. Random-effects model meta-analyses and subgroup meta-analyses were performed. Fifteen eligible trials analyzed a total of 534 subjects. Almond intervention significantly decreased total cholesterol (summary net change: -10.69 mg/dL; 95% CI: -16.75, -4.63 mg/dL), LDL cholesterol (summary net change: -5.83 mg/dL; 95% CI: -9.91, -1.75 mg/dL); body weight (summary net change: -1.39 kg; 95% CI: -2.49, -0.30 kg), HDL cholesterol (summary net change: -1.26 mg/dL; 95% CI: -2.47, -0.05 mg/dL), and apolipoprotein B (apoB) (summary net change: -6.67 mg/dL; 95% CI: -12.63, -0.72 mg/dL). Triglycerides, systolic blood pressure, apolipoprotein A1, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, and lipoprotein (a) showed no difference between almond and control in the main and subgroup analyses. Fasting blood glucose, diastolic blood pressure, and body mass index significantly decreased with almond consumption of >42.5 g compared with ≤42.5 g. Almond consumption may reduce the risk of CVD by improving blood lipids and by decreasing body weight and apoB. Substantial heterogeneity in eligible studies regarding almond interventions and dosages precludes firmer conclusions.

Indexed as

DietNutsPrunus dulcisAdultApolipoproteins BBiomarkersBody WeightCardiovascular DiseasesFemaleHumansLipidsMaleMEDLINERandomized Controlled Trials as TopicApolipoproteins BBiomarkersLipidsblood lipidshypercholesterolemiahyperglycemiahypertensionmeta-analysismetabolic syndromeobesityrisk factorssystematic review

Identifiers

PMID31243439
PMCPMC6855931
OpenAlexW2955639005

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.