Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31492975›Full record

SynthesisEuropean journal of nutrition2019

Factors influencing the cardiometabolic response to (poly)phenols and phytosterols: a review of the COST Action POSITIVe activities.

Eileen R Gibney, Dragan Milenkovic, Emilie Combet, Tatjana Ruskovska, Arno Greyling, Antonio González-Sarrías, Baujke de Roos, Francisco Tomás-Barberán, Christine Morand, Ana Rodriguez-Mateos

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European journal of nutrition, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
8.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Bioavailability of Rosehip (Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  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

10 authors at 8 institutions in 6 countries.

Eileen R GibneyUCD Institute of Food and Health, School of Agriculture and Food Science, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland. Eileen.gibney@ucd.ie.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9465-052X
Dragan MilenkovicINRA, UNH, Unité de Nutrition Humaine, CRNH Auvergne, Université Clermont Auvergne, Clermont-Ferrand, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6353-0912
Emilie CombetSchool of Medicine, Dentistry and Nursing, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9302-8971
Tatjana RuskovskaFaculty of Medical Sciences, University "Goce Delcev"-Stip, Štip, Republic of North Macedonia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4300-4891
Arno GreylingUnilever Research and Development Vlaardingen, Vlaardingen, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9633-1546
Antonio González-SarríasFood and Health Lab. CEBAS-CSIC, Murcia, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3407-0678
Baujke de RoosThe Rowett Institute, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2750-3914
Francisco Tomás-BarberánFood and Health Lab. CEBAS-CSIC, Murcia, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0790-1739
Christine MorandINRA, UNH, Unité de Nutrition Humaine, CRNH Auvergne, Université Clermont Auvergne, Clermont-Ferrand, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8128-1032
Ana Rodriguez-MateosDepartment of Nutritional Sciences, School of Life Course Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3242-402X
Centro de Edafología y Biología Aplicada del Segura · ESUniversité Clermont Auvergne · FRGoce Delcev University · MKKing's College London · GBUnilever (Netherlands) · NLUniversity College Dublin · IEUniversity of Aberdeen · GBUniversity of Glasgow · GB

Funding

European Cooperation in Science and Technology FA1403
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeEvidence exists regarding the beneficial effects of diets rich in plant-based foods regarding the prevention of cardiometabolic diseases. These plant-based foods are an exclusive and abundant source of a variety of biologically active phytochemicals, including polyphenols, carotenoids, glucosinolates and phytosterols, with known health-promoting effects through a wide range of biological activities, such as improvements in endothelial function, platelet function, blood pressure, blood lipid profile and insulin sensitivity. We know that an individual's physical/genetic makeup may influence their response to a dietary intervention, and thereby may influence the benefit/risk associated with consumption of a particular dietary constituent. This inter-individual variation in responsiveness has also been described for dietary plant bioactives but has not been explored in depth. To address this issue, the European scientific experts involved in the COST Action POSITIVe systematically analyzed data from published studies to assess the inter-individual variation in selected clinical biomarkers associated with cardiometabolic risk, in response to the consumption of plant-based bioactives (poly)phenols and phytosterols. The present review summarizes the main findings resulting from the meta-analyses already completed.

resultsMeta-analyses of randomized controlled trials conducted within POSITIVe suggest that age, sex, ethnicity, pathophysiological status and medication may be responsible for the heterogeneity in the biological responsiveness to (poly)phenol and phytosterol consumption and could lead to inconclusive results in some clinical trials aiming to demonstrate the health effects of specific dietary bioactive compounds. However, the contribution of these factors is not yet demonstrated consistently across all polyphenolic groups and cardiometabolic outcomes, partly due to the heterogeneity in trial designs, low granularity of data reporting, variety of food vectors and target populations, suggesting the need to implement more stringent reporting practices in the future studies. Studies investigating the effects of genetic background or gut microbiome on variability were limited and should be considered in future studies.

conclusionUnderstanding why some bioactive plant compounds work effectively in some individuals but not, or less, in others is crucial for a full consideration of these compounds in future strategies of personalized nutrition for a better prevention of cardiometabolic disease. However, there is also still a need for the development of a substantial evidence-base to develop health strategies, food products or lifestyle solutions that embrace this variability.

Indexed as

Biological Variation, PopulationCardiovascular SystemDiet, VegetarianEuropeHumansMetabolomicsPhytosterolsPlants, EdiblePolyphenolsPhytosterolsPolyphenolsBioactiveCardiometabolic diseasesDietGene expressionHealthMetabolismMetabotypeMicrobiomePlantResponseVariation

Identifiers

PMID31492975
PMCPMC6851211
OpenAlexW2969484100

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.