Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34395493›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in nutrition2021

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Potential of Millets for Managing and Reducing the Risk of Developing Diabetes Mellitus.

Seetha Anitha, Joanna Kane-Potaka, Takuji W Tsusaka, Rosemary Botha, Ananthan Rajendran, D Ian Givens, Devraj J Parasannanavar, Kowsalya Subramaniam, Kanaka Durga Veera Prasad, Mani Vetriventhan and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in nutrition, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
9.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 100 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. 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

11 authors at 7 institutions in 4 countries.

Seetha AnithaSmart Food Initiative, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru, India.
Joanna Kane-PotakaSmart Food Initiative, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru, India.
Takuji W TsusakaOrganization for Advanced and Integrated Research, Kobe University, Kobe, Japan.
Rosemary BothaDevelopment Strategy and Governance Division, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Lilongwe, Malawi.
Ananthan RajendranNational Institute of Nutrition (NIN), Hyderabad, India.
D Ian GivensInstitute of Food, Nutrition and Health, University of Reading, Reading, United Kingdom.
Devraj J ParasannanavarNational Institute of Nutrition (NIN), Hyderabad, India.
Kowsalya SubramaniamFood Science and Nutrition, Avinashilingam Institute for Home Science and Higher Education for Women, Coimbatore, India.
Kanaka Durga Veera PrasadSmart Food Initiative, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru, India.
Mani VetriventhanSmart Food Initiative, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru, India.
Raj Kumar BhandariNational Technical Board of Nutrition, Government of India (GoI), New Delhi, India.
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics · INNational Institute of Nutrition · INAfrican Institute for Development Policy · MWAvinashilingam University · INGovernment of India · INKobe University · JPUniversity of Reading · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Millets (including sorghum) are known to be highly nutritious besides having a low carbon footprint and the ability to survive in high temperatures with minimal water. Millets are widely recognised as having a low Glycaemic Index (GI) helping to manage diabetes. This systematic review and meta-analyzes across the different types of millets and different forms of processing/cooking collated all evidences. Of the 65 studies that were collected globally, 39 studies with 111 observations were used to analyze GI outcomes and 56 studies were used to analyze fasting, post-prandial glucose level, insulin index and HbA1c outcomes in a meta-analysis. It is evident from the descriptive statistics that the mean GI of millets is 52.7 ± 10.3, which is about 36% lower than in typical staples of milled rice (71.7 ± 14.4) and refined wheat (74.2 ± 14.9). The descriptive, meta and regression analyses revealed that Job's tears, fonio, foxtail, barnyard, and teff were the millets with low mean GI (<55) that are more effective (35-79%) in reducing dietary GI than the control samples. Millets with intermediate GI (55-69) are pearl millet, finger millet, kodo millet, little millet, and sorghum which have a 13-35% lower GI than the control with high GI (>69). A meta-analysis also showed that all millets had significantly (

Indexed as

diabetesglycaemic indexglycaemic responsemeta-analaysismilletssorghum

Identifiers

PMID34395493
PMCPMC8355360
OpenAlexW3185570640

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.