Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T18:19:16.583Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Are all fibres created equal with respect to lipid lowering? Comparing the effect of viscous dietary fibre to non-viscous fibre from cereal sources: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2022

Elena Jovanovski
Affiliation:
Clinical Nutrition and Risk Factor Modification Centre, St. Michael’s Hospital, Unity Health, Toronto, ON, Canada Department of Nutritional Sciences, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
Michelle Nguyen
Affiliation:
Clinical Nutrition and Risk Factor Modification Centre, St. Michael’s Hospital, Unity Health, Toronto, ON, Canada Department of Nutritional Sciences, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
Yui Kurahashi
Affiliation:
Department of Nutritional Sciences, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
Allison Komishon
Affiliation:
Clinical Nutrition and Risk Factor Modification Centre, St. Michael’s Hospital, Unity Health, Toronto, ON, Canada
Dandan Li
Affiliation:
Clinical Nutrition and Risk Factor Modification Centre, St. Michael’s Hospital, Unity Health, Toronto, ON, Canada Department of Nutritional Sciences, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
Ho Hoang Vi Thanh
Affiliation:
Clinical Nutrition and Risk Factor Modification Centre, St. Michael’s Hospital, Unity Health, Toronto, ON, Canada
Rana Khayyat
Affiliation:
Clinical Nutrition and Risk Factor Modification Centre, St. Michael’s Hospital, Unity Health, Toronto, ON, Canada Department of Nutritional Sciences, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
Alexandra Louisa Jenkins
Affiliation:
Clinical Nutrition and Risk Factor Modification Centre, St. Michael’s Hospital, Unity Health, Toronto, ON, Canada
Tauseef Ahmad Khan
Affiliation:
Department of Nutritional Sciences, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada Toronto 3D Knowledge Synthesis and Clinical Trials Unit, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Canada
Andreea Zurbau
Affiliation:
Clinical Nutrition and Risk Factor Modification Centre, St. Michael’s Hospital, Unity Health, Toronto, ON, Canada Department of Nutritional Sciences, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada Toronto 3D Knowledge Synthesis and Clinical Trials Unit, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Canada
John Sievenpiper
Affiliation:
Clinical Nutrition and Risk Factor Modification Centre, St. Michael’s Hospital, Unity Health, Toronto, ON, Canada Department of Nutritional Sciences, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada Toronto 3D Knowledge Synthesis and Clinical Trials Unit, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Canada Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada Department of Medicine, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON Canada
Vladimir Vuksan*
Affiliation:
Clinical Nutrition and Risk Factor Modification Centre, St. Michael’s Hospital, Unity Health, Toronto, ON, Canada Department of Nutritional Sciences, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada
*
* Corresponding author: Vladimir Vuksan, email [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although compelling evidence from observational studies supports a positive association between consumption of cereal fibre and CVD risk reduction, randomised controlled trials (RCT) often target viscous fibre type as the prospective contributor to lipid lowering to reduce CVD risk. The objective of our study is to compare the lipids-lowering effects of viscous dietary fibre to non-viscous, cereal-type fibre in clinical studies. RCT that evaluated the effect of viscous dietary fibre compared with non-viscous, cereal fibre on LDL cholesterol and alternative lipid markers, with a duration of ≥ 3 weeks, in adults with or without hypercholesterolaemia were included. Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Central Register were searched through October 19, 2021. Data were extracted and assessed by two independent reviewers. The generic inverse variance method with random effects model was utilised to pool the data which were expressed as mean differences (MD) with 95 % CI. Eighty-nine trials met eligibility criteria (n 4755). MD for the effect of viscous dietary fibre compared with non-viscous cereal fibre were LDL cholesterol (MD = –0·26 mmol/l; 95 % CI: –0·30, −0·22 mmol/l; P < 0·01), non-HDL cholesterol (MD = –0·33 mmol/l; 95 % CI: –0·39, −0·28 mmol/l; P < 0·01) and Apo-B (MD = –0·04 g/l; 95 % CI: –0·06, −0·03 g/l; P < 0·01). Viscous dietary fibre reduces LDL cholesterol and alternative lipid markers relative to the fibre from cereal sources, hence may be a preferred type of fibre-based dietary intervention targeting CVD risk reduction.

Type
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Nutrition Society

Over the past 50 years, evidence has continuously supported the role of diets high in fibre and whole grain in the prevention of CHD often attributed to cholesterol lowering. As such, dietary fibre has been instituted as one of the key features of healthy dietary pattern recommendations(1,Reference Anderson, Gregoire and Pearson2) .

The general consensus on the lipid-lowering effects is built upon data from both cohort study observations and smaller scale feeding trials spanning a broad umbrella of fibre-rich foods and functional supplements(Reference Aller, de Luis and Izaola3Reference Cicero, Fogacci and Stoian6). Due to the great variation in physicochemical properties of fibre sources, developing definitions that adequately classify fibre types, while predicting physiological responses such as lipid lowering, has been challenging(Reference Jones7Reference Williams, Mikkelsen and Flanagan9). Classification according to solubility remains common(Reference Mudgil and Barak8), but grading fibres according to its gel-forming capability may be more relevant for functional implications(Reference Vuksan, Jenkins and Rogovik10). Major CVD and lipid management guidelines, nonetheless, largely continue to generalise recommendations to total dietary fibre as a single entity, upwards to impractical quantities of 40 g/d, with few attempts to emphasise any selection of fibre by type to optimise benefit(Reference Anderson, Gregoire and Pearson2,11,Reference Nerenberg, Zarnke and Leung12) .

While some convincing data has emerged from randomised controlled trials (RCT) that used viscous soluble fibres, thus contributing to several fibre-based health claims(13,14) , not all agree(Reference Swain, Rouse and Curley15). Viscous fibre is found in the diet in oats and barley as β-glucan, certain legumes (ex. guar), citrus fruits (ex. pectin) and in supplements such as psyllium husk or konjac-glucomannan (KJM). Differences in fibre efficacy have been attributed to the difference in rheological properties and the ability to increase the viscosity of the intestinal content, thus binding to bile acids to stimulate excretion and de novo synthesis(Reference Barsanti, Passarelli and Evangelista16Reference Wong and Jenkins19).

Non-viscous or non-gelling structural fibres such as wheat bran cellulose, hemicelluloses (i.e arbinoxylans) or lignins are a counterpart to viscous fibre, consumed mostly in the western diet as part of cereal crops and whole grains. Much of the debate resides in regards to cardio-protection offered from these types of grain fibres, in part due to disparity between consistent observational evidence(Reference Veronese, Solmi and Caruso20) and, on the contrary, inconsistent RCT data on major CVD risk factors including lipids(Reference Jenkins, Kendall and Augustin21), making this topic a highly controversial issue in nutrition. Although certain assumptions prevail that non-gelling insoluble cereal fibres may not be metabolically inactive, several novel mechanisms supporting the cardiometabolic relevance of insoluble fibre have also emerged(Reference Weickert and Pfeiffer22Reference Reynolds, Quiter and Hunninghake24).

It is therefore of significant clinical interest to systematically characterise how administration of viscous fibre compares to the non-viscous cereal fibre sources on lipid targets within a randomised controlled setting. The objective of this study, therefore, is to summarise and quantify the available evidence for the effect of viscous fibres compared with the effect of non-viscous fibre types, on LDL cholesterol as well as novel lipid markers non-HDL cholesterol and ApoB, using high-quality data from RCT compared with diets containing non-viscous types of fibre including cereal grain.

Methods

Protocol and registration

The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions(Reference Higgins, Thomas and Chandler25) was applied in conducting this systematic review and meta-analysis and results are reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines(Reference Page, McKenzie and Bossuyt26) (online Supplementary Table S1). The study protocol is available at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02068248).

Search strategy and data sources

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched using the strategy presented in Supplementary Table S2. The database search was supplemented with a manual search of references. Searches were performed with the most recent update on October 19, 2021.

Study eligibility

Included trials are RCT that investigated the effect of major viscous fibre sources including: barley β-glucan, oat β-glucan, KJM, psyllium, guar gum and pectin, compared with an insoluble fibre (i.e. non-viscous cereal fibre sources of wheat, rice, maize or isolates) in adults with and without hypercholesterolaemia for ≥ 3 weeks duration on LDL cholesterol, non-HDL cholesterol and ApoB. Studies that did not report non-HDL cholesterol but provided sufficient information to calculate the lipid marker were also considered. Included trials must also have reported the dose of dietary fibre or provide enough information to be computable. In multi-arm trials, we selected the groups most relevant to our research question. In publications with duplicate populations, we selected the most recent publication. Only trials written in English or translated to English by the authors were considered.

Data extraction and quality assessment

Independent reviewers extracted data from eligible studies using a standardised pro forma. Relevant data included information on study design (crossover or parallel), sample size, duration, subject characteristics (sex, age, BMI, disease status), background diet, energy balance, dose of fibre, comparator, study setting (country; impatient or outpatient) and funding source. If the soluble fibre content of psyllium was not reported, it was considered to be 70 % soluble dietary fibre. If the β-glucan content was not reported, whole barley and barley soluble fibre were considered to be 4·75 % and 93·8 % β-glucan, respectively(Reference Limberger-Bayer, de Francisco and Chan27). Oat bran, whole oats and oat soluble fibre was considered to be 6·9 %, 5·0 %, and 92·5 % β-glucan, respectively(Reference Chen and Anderson28Reference Whitehead, Beck and Tosh30). Baseline and end data, or changes from baseline data for LDL cholesterol, non-HDL cholesterol and ApoB for both control and intervention groups were extracted as means ± se or were computed according to standard formulas outlined in the Cochrane Handbook(Reference Higgins, Thomas and Chandler25). In multi-arm trials, the se (mean difference (MD)) was adjusted to take into account multiple comparisons extracted per control group(Reference Higgins, Thomas and Chandler25). Authors were contacted for additional information when necessary.

The risk of bias in each included study was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool(Reference Higgins, Thomas and Chandler25). The domains assessed included sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data and selective outcome reporting. A ‘high risk’ of bias was assigned to studies that contained methodological flaws that were likely to affect the results. A ‘low risk’ was assigned if the flaw was deemed inconsequential, and an ‘unclear risk’ was assigned to studies where insufficient information was provided to assess risk of bias. Any discrepancies in the extracted data or the risk of bias assessments were resolved by discussion until an agreement was reached between co-extractors.

Data management and statistical analysis

Review Manager version 5.3 (The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark) and STATA version 14 (StataCorp) were used to analyse data. Plot Digitizer version 2·6·8 (http://plotdigitizer.sourceforge.net/) was used to estimate effect sizes when data was presented through graphs. The difference between the change from baseline of the control and the intervention arms was calculated for each study and used as the MD between interventions for LDL cholesterol, non-HDL cholesterol and ApoB. If change from baseline values was not provided and could not be calculated, the difference between end-of-treatment values was used. In studies that did not directly report non-HDL cholesterol, it was calculated by obtaining the difference between total cholesterol and HDL cholesterol. The standard deviations of the calculated non-HDL cholesterol values were estimated with the equation: sd = √(sd 2 total cholesterol + sd 2 HDL cholesterol)(Reference Borenstein, Hedges and Higgins31,32) . Paired analyses were conducted for all cross-over trials, and a conservative correlation coefficient of 0·50 was used to compute the se of the MD(Reference Elbourne, Altman and Higgins33). The MD ± se from each study was pooled for each lipid outcome by using the generic inverse-variance method with DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model. Pooled results are expressed as MD with 95 % CI. A two-sided P-value of < 0·05 was set as the level of significance. For all lipid outcomes, the primary analysis was further divided into subgroups by fibre type.

The presence of heterogeneity between studies was tested using the Cochran Q-statistic and the degree of heterogeneity was quantified by the I2 statistic with a significance level of P < 0·10. An I2 ≥ 50 % was considered evidence of substantial heterogeneity(Reference Higgins, Thomas and Chandler25). Sources of heterogeneity were investigated through subgroup and leave-one-out sensitivity analyses. When ≥ 10 trials were available for an outcome, subgroup analyses of categorical and continuous variables that were determined a priori were conducted for baseline values including, BMI, dose, duration, study design, energy balance, fibre type, disease status, funding and background diet. Meta-regression analyses were performed to estimate the influence of subgroup effects, with a significance level set at P < 0·05. Leave-one-out sensitivity analyses involved individually removing each trial from the meta-analysis and recalculating the overall effect size and heterogeneity to assess the influence of each single trial on the overall pooled result.

Dose–response analyses were performed using linear (continuous) and non-linear (cubic spline) meta-regression with significance at P < 0·05. If ≥ 10 trials were available, publication bias was assessed through visual inspection of funnel plots for asymmetry and verified through Egger’s and Begg’s tests, where P < 0·05 was considered evidence for small study effects. If publication bias was suspected, Duval and Tweedie ‘trim and fill’ method was used to estimate the effect size after imputing ‘missing’ study data(Reference Duval and Tweedie34).

Grading the evidence

The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool was used to assess the overall certainty of the available evidence(Reference Balshem, Helfand and Schunemann35Reference Guyatt, Thorlund and Oxman47). The certainty of evidence for each outcome was assessed as either ‘very low’, ‘low’, ‘moderate’, or ‘high’ from two independent reviewers. Evidence from RCT’s received a default grade of ‘high’ quality, however it can be downgraded on the basis of pre-specified criteria: risk of bias (assessed through the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool), inconsistency (substantial unexplained inter-study heterogeneity, I2 ≥ 50 %, P < 0·10), indirectness (presence of factors that limit the generalisability of results), imprecision (95 % CI for effect estimates are wide and cross a minimally important difference for benefit or harm and criteria for the optimal information size are not met) and publication bias (assessed through visual inspection of a funnel plot and statistical tests for asymmetry (Egger’s and Begg’s test).

Results

Search results

The search strategy is presented in Fig. 1. The search yielded a total of 9429 publications, of which 258 were reviewed in full and 89 (n 4755) were included in the final analysis. Of these, eighty studies reported on LDL cholesterol (n 4579) and 22 studies reported ApoB (n 1536). Non-HDL cholesterol was not directly reported in any of the included studies, however eighty-four studies provided sufficient information to calculate it (n 4537).

Fig. 1. Flow of literature. Summary of the number of articles that were identified and included in the meta-analysis of the effect of viscous fibre on LDL cholesterol, non-HDL cholesterol and ApoB. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and CINAHL databases were searched.

Trial characteristics

Characteristics of included studies are summarised in Table 1 (Reference Vuksan, Jenkins and Rogovik10,Reference Reynolds, Quiter and Hunninghake24,Reference Aoe, Ichinose and Kohyama48Reference Nyman, Nguyen and Wikman134) . The majority of the studies (45 %) were set in North America (twenty-seven in the USA, twelve in Canada and one in Mexico), 33 % of the studies were conducted in Europe (ten in Finland, seven in the UK, three in Netherlands, three in Sweden, one each in Italy, Greece, Slovenia and Norway and one each across Spain and Netherlands and UK and Germany), 11 % of the studies were conducted in Asia (three in Japan, three in Iran and one each in China, Thailand, Taiwan and Pakistan), 7 % in Australia, 2 % in New Zealand, and 2 % in South America (one in Brazil and one in Venezuela). Of all RCT, 35 (39 %) used a cross-over design and 54 (61 %) used a parallel design. Participants were generally middle aged (mean age = 50·8 years) and overweight (average BMI = 26·9), with an approximately even distribution of sexes (1812 males, 1815 females). The majority of studies were conducted in individuals with hypercholesterolaemia (70 %), whereas the remaining were conducted in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (16 %), healthy (8 %) or overweight (2 %), and 1 % each with metabolic syndrome, type 1 diabetes mellitus, ulcerative colitis and polycystic ovary syndrome. The median dose of viscous fibres across all outcomes was 7·0 g/d, with KJM of 15·0 g/d, guar gum 15·0 g/d, psyllium 7·1 g/d, barley β-glucan 5·3 g/d, oat β-glucan 3·1 g/d and pectin 12·0 g/d, with the treatment duration ranging from 3 to 52 weeks. The median dose of non-viscous fibres was 10·2 g/d (30 trials did not report dose). In more than half of the trials, 63 % of participants followed their normal habitual (unmodified) diet. Of the trials that used a background diet, 29 % used a healthy diet (NCEP diet, AHA diet, etc), 6 % used a low-fat diet and 1 % each used a low-calorie diet, low-fibre diet or high-fat diet.

Table 1. Summary of included trials

A, agency; A-I, agency-industry; C, crossover; DB, double blind; HC, hypercholesterolaemia; I, industry; MetS, metabolic syndrome; NA, North America; NB, no blinding; N/R, not reported; NZ, New Zealand; OW, overweight; P, parallel; PCOS, polycystic ovary syndrome; SA, South America; SB, single blind; T1DM, type 2 diabetes mellitus; T2DM, type 2 diabetes mellitus; UC, ulcerative colitis.

* The total values do not add up to the sum of each fibre type because some studies investigated multiple fibre types.

The number of male and female participants do not equal the total number of participants because some studies did not specify the sex of the subject.

Using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (online Supplementary Fig. S1), the majority of trials were determined to have an unclear risk of bias in random sequence generation and allocation concealment methodology, and a low risk of bias in attrition (incomplete outcome data), selective reporting bias and performance (blinding of participants and personnel). Funding for trials included industry (33 %), agency (24 %), agency industry (20 %), none (1 %) or funding source was not reported (22 %).

Effect on LDL cholesterol

Figure 2 shows the effect of viscous fibres on LDL cholesterol. Pooled effect of eighty studies, including 102 comparisons (n 4958) showed a significant effect of viscous fibres on LDL cholesterol (MD = –0·26 mmol/l; 95 % CI: –0·30, –0·22 mmol/l; P < 0·01), compared with non-viscous control. In individual subgroups by fibre type, guar gum demonstrated a numerically greatest reduction on LDL cholesterol (MD = –0·53 mmol/l; 95 % CI: –0·67, –0·38 mmol/l; P < 0·01) followed by KJM (MD = –0·38 mmol/l; 95 % CI: –0·56, –0·21 mmol/l; P < 0·01) and psyllium (MD = –0·35 mmol/l; 95 % CI: –0·42, –0·28 mmol/l; P < 0·01). The lowest LDL cholesterol reduction was found with barley β-glucan (MD = –0·21 mmol/l; 95 % CI: –0·31, –0·11 mmol/l; P < 0·01) and oat β-glucan (MD = –0·20 mmol/l; 95 % CI: –0·25, –0·14 mmol/l; P < 0·01). The presence of substantial inter-study heterogeneity was observed in the overall analysis (I2 = 73 %, P < 0·01). Leave-one-out sensitivity analysis did not alter the heterogeneity observed or the significance, direction and size of the pooled effect. Continuous a priori subgroup analyses suggested that LDL cholesterol was significantly modified by dose with every subsequent increase in dose (g/d) being associated with an LDL cholesterol reduction of –0·01 (P < 0·01), with residual I2 = 66·3 % (online Supplementary Table S3). Categorical a priori subgroup analyses revealed a significant effect of fibre type on LDL cholesterol (P < 0·01), with residual I2 = 62·4 % (online Supplementary Fig. S2). KJM showed a greater reduction compared with oat β-glucan (MD = –0·19 mmol/l; 95 % CI: –0·37, –0·01 mmol/l; P = 0·04). Guar gum showed a greater lowering effect compared with both barley β-glucan (MD = –0·33 mmol/l; 95 % CI: –0·52, –0·14 mmol/l; P < 0·01) and oat β-glucan (MD = –0·33 mmol/l; 95 % CI: –0·51, –0·15 mmol/l; P < 0·01). Psyllium showed a lower effect compared with barley β-glucan (MD = –0·16 mmol/l; 95 % CI: –0·28, –0·04 mmol/l; P = 0·01) and oat β-glucan (MD = –0·16 mmol/l; 95 % CI: –0·25, –0·06 mmol/l; P < 0·01). Significant effects were also found for disease status (P = 0·03, residual I2 = 70·8 %), where individuals with T2DM showed greater reductions in LDL-cholesterol than individuals with hypercholesterolaemia (MD = –0·24 mmol/l; 95 % CI: –0·41, –0·08 mmol/l; P < 0·01) and healthy individuals (MD = –0·24 mmol/l; 95 % CI: –0·46, –0·03 mmol/l; P = 0·03) (online Supplementary Fig. S2). There was also a significant effect of dose < 6·0 v ≥ 6·0 g/d with higher dose associated with larger reduction (P = 0·01, residual I2 = 65·3 %) (online Supplementary Fig. S2). Further a priori subgroup analyses found no effect on BMI, duration, study design, energy balance, baseline LDL cholesterol, comparator, funding and background diet.

Fig. 2. Superplot of randomised controlled trials investigating the effect of viscous dietary fibres on LDL cholesterol (mmol/l). Mean differences (95 % CI) between viscous and non-viscous, cereal-type dietary fibre are generated using the generic inverse variance random-effects model. The red diamonds represent the pooled effect estimates for each fibre type, while the black diamond represents the pooled effect estimate from all fibre types. I2 represents the estimated heterogeneity between individual studies.

Effect on non-HDL cholesterol

Figure 3 shows the effect of viscous fibres on non-HDL cholesterol. Pooled effects of eighty-four studies, including 106 comparisons (n 5070) showed a significant effect of viscous fibres on non-HDL cholesterol (MD = –0·33 mmol/l; 95 % CI: –0·39, −0·28 mmol/l; P < 0·01), compared with control. Substantial inter-study heterogeneity was observed in the overall analysis (I2 = 79 %, P < 0·01). Sensitivity analysis by systematic removal of individual trials did not alter the heterogeneity or pooled effect. Continuous a priori subgroup analyses were not significant (online Supplementary Table S3). However, categorical a priori subgroup analyses revealed a significant effect of fibre type on non-HDL cholesterol (P = 0·03), with residual I2 = 76·6 % (online Supplementary Fig. S3). There was also a significant effect of BMI, with individuals under 25 kg/m2 associated with a larger reduction (P = 0·04, residual I2 = 79·0 %) (online Supplementary Fig. S3). Further a priori subgroup analyses found no effect on dose, duration, study design, energy balance, baseline non-HDL cholesterol, comparator, disease status, funding and background diet.

Fig. 3. Superplot of randomised controlled trials investigating the effect of viscous dietary fibres on non-HDL cholesterol (mmol/l). Mean differences (95 % CI) between viscous and non-viscous, cereal-type dietary fibre are generated using the generic inverse variance random-effects model. The red diamonds represent the pooled effect estimates for each fibre type, while the black diamond represents the pooled effect estimate from all fibre types. I2 represents the estimated heterogeneity between individual studies.

Effect on ApoB

Figure 4 shows the effect of viscous fibres on ApoB. Pooled effects of twenty-two studies, including twenty-four comparisons (n 1558) showed a significant effect of viscous fibres on ApoB (MD = –0·04 g/l; 95 % CI: –0·06, –0·03 g/l; P < 0·01), compared with control. Substantial inter-study heterogeneity was observed in the overall analysis (I2 = 70 %, P < 0·01). Sensitivity analysis by systematic removal of individual trials did not alter the heterogeneity or pooled effect. Continuous a priori subgroup analyses were not significant (online Supplementary Table S3). However, categorical a priori subgroup analyses revealed that the ApoB lowering effects of viscous fibre were modified by background diet (P < 0·01), with residual I2 = 31·1 % (online Supplementary Fig. S4). Significant effects were found between healthy and low-fat diets (MD = –0·08 g/l; 95 % CI: –0·13, –0·03 g/l; P < 0·01), healthy and standard diets (MD = –0·04 g/l; 95 % CI: –0·07, –0·00 g/l; P = 0·04), healthy and other (MD = –0·08 g/l; 95 % CI: –0·14, –0·03 g/l; P < 0·01), low-fat and standard diet (MD = 0·04 g/l; 95 % CI: 0·00, 0·09 g/l; P = 0·04) and standard diet and other (MD = –0·05 g/l; 95 % CI: –0·10, –0·00 g/l; P = 0·05). There was also a significant effect of study design, with cross-over studies showing greater reductions (P = 0·04, residual I2 = 71·2 %) (online Supplementary Fig. S4). Further a priori subgroup analyses found no effect on dose, BMI, duration, energy balance, baseline ApoB, fibre type, comparator, disease status and funding.

Fig. 4. Superplot of randomised controlled trials investigating the effect of viscous dietary fibres on ApoB (g/l). Mean differences (95 % CI) between viscous and non-viscous, cereal-type fibre were generated using the generic inverse variance random-effects model. The red diamonds represent the pooled effect estimates for each fibre type, while the black diamond represents the pooled effect estimate from all fibre types. I2 represents the estimated heterogeneity between individual studies.

Publication bias

Visual inspection of contour enhanced funnel plots (online Supplementary Fig. S5) showed signs of publication bias for LDL cholesterol, non-HDL cholesterol and ApoB. This was supported by Egger’s and Begg’s test for both LDL cholesterol (P < 0·01; P < 0·01, respectively) and non-HDL cholesterol (P = 0·04; P < 0·01, respectively), but only Egger’s test for ApoB (P = 0·01, P = 0·36). The Duval and Tweedie ‘Trim and Fill’ method did not change the direction or significance of the pooled effect estimate for any outcome (online Supplementary Fig. S6).

Dose response

The dose–response analysis revealed a significant linear association between increasing dose of viscous fibre and lowering of LDL cholesterol compared with non-viscous control (P = 0·01) (online Supplementary Fig. S7). There was no evidence of a linear or non-linear association between increasing dose of viscous dietary fibre and non-HDL cholesterol and ApoB (online Supplementary Fig. S7). Linear and non-linear dose response for guar gum, barley β-glucan and oat β-glucan showed no significant association between increasing dose of fibre and LDL cholesterol (online Supplementary Fig. S8). Psyllium showed a linear dose response suggesting a greater reduction in LDL-cholesterol with lower doses (P = 0·05) (online Supplementary Fig. S8). A dose–response analysis could not be conducted on KJM due to insufficient number of studies. Non-linear dose–response analysis conducted at the median threshold for individual fibre type on LDL cholesterol also showed no significant association (online Supplementary Fig. S9).

GRADE assessment

Supplementary Table S4 shows the GRADE assessment of the overall certainty of the evidence for the effect of viscous fibres compared with non-viscous fibres on cholesterol. The evidence for LDL cholesterol and non-HDL cholesterol was downgraded for inconsistency and the evidence for ApoB was downgraded for imprecision and thus all outcomes were graded as moderate quality.

Discussion

Summary

The present systematic review and meta-analysis includes data from 89 RCT (n 4755) to provide a comparative effect of viscous dietary fibres v non-viscous, cereal fibre-type counterparts in adults with or without hypercholesterolaemia on LDL cholesterol, non-HDL cholesterol and ApoB. Based on our pooled analysis of trials providing a median quantity of 7·0 g/d of viscous fibre, consumed within a median duration of 6 weeks, viscous fibre lowered LDL cholesterol (MD = −0·26 mmol/l; 95 % CI: −0·30, −0·22 mmol/l), non-HDL cholesterol (MD = –0·33 mmol/l; 95 % CI: –0·39, −0·28 mmol/l) and ApoB (MD = –0·04 g/l; 95 % CI: –0·06, −0·03 g/l), beyond the effect of comparator insoluble cereal fibre sources, in a dose-dependent manner. The analysis suggests a benefit regardless of BMI or duration of intake. Evidence from lipid outcomes were graded as moderate.

Viscosity has been recognised as a physicochemical property of dietary fibre that is postulated to exert a metabolic benefit through decreased nutrient kinetics in the gut, demonstrated to lower postprandial blood glucose, blood pressure and improve diabetes management in addition to its lipid-lowering effects(Reference Jovanovski, Khayyat and Zurbau135,Reference Khan, Jovanovski and Ho136) . Therefore, the physical classification of fibres by viscosity is relevant to distinguish clinical effects of dietary fibres. Wood et al. (1994) had shown early on that acid hydrolysis processing debilitated the beneficial effects of oat β-glucans that resulted in reductions of viscosity(Reference Wood, Braaten and Scott137). Our group later showed that the property of viscosity, rather than quantity of dietary fibre predicts lipid lowering(Reference Vuksan, Jenkins and Rogovik10). Within our sub-analysis of individual viscous dietary fibres, it appears that the generally more viscous fibres, such as KJM and guar gum, have generated larger differences in LDL cholesterol than the less viscous, but broadly recommended β-glucan.

Conversely, insoluble, non-viscous fibres are the principal components of cereal fibres and whole grains. This type of structural plant fibre, especially wheat and corn sources, have typically been quantified to depict fibre intake from food frequency questionnaires in large prospective cohorts that conferred cardiometabolic benefits, paralleled by low dietary intake and inadequate documentation of other functional fibre sources and supplements. In comparison, data from RCT on the effect of cereal-type non viscous fibres are scarce and largely without effect(Reference Truswell138,Reference Jenkins, Kendall and Vuksan139) . In one of the earlier trials comparing 3-month supplementation of non-viscous wheat bran fibre to control, Jenkins et al. (2002) did not demonstrate a difference on blood lipids(Reference Jenkins, Kendall and Augustin21,Reference Jenkins, Kendall and McKeown-Eyssen140) . Similarly, administration of rye and whole wheat cereals relative to refined cereals failed to modify lipid markers in metabolic syndrome(Reference Giacco, Lappi and Costabile141). More recently, the OptiFiT trial did not find a difference in cardiometabolic outcomes following 1-year intake of 7·5 g/d insoluble cereal fibre supplement(Reference Honsek, Kabisch and Kemper142). Nonetheless, there are data that in some studies, where 26 g/d of wheat bran improved the blood lipid profile in healthy individuals(Reference Munoz, Sandstead and Jacob143). It is unclear whether perhaps longer duration of non-viscous fibres intake is needed for a metabolic benefit or whether the beneficial effect from observational evidence is a result of the displacement of foods supplying saturated fat or refined carbohydrates.

The findings of this study provide a clearer lens on the current knowledge on dietary fibre, suggesting that the degree of lipid lowering varies between two major fibre classes. Each of the dietary fibres for which data was available, including konjac, guar gum, psyllium and oat and barley β-glucan, independently demonstrated significant LDL cholesterol lowering relative to the non-viscous fibres. The presence of a biological gradient of a dose–response relationship further supports the proposed association.

The data here build on a broader report of over 25 years ago that hinted at a 0·057 mmol/l reduction in LDL cholesterol per gram of fibre for major soluble dietary fibres relative to any placebo control, but precludes direct comparison to current analysis(Reference Brown, Rosner and Willett144).

A dose of 5–10 g of viscous fibre has been previously projected to confer a ∼5 % reduction in LDL cholesterol. In the current analysis, doses above a median dose of ∼6 g of viscous dietary fibre demonstrate a clinically relevant further 8 % reduction in both LDL cholesterol (–0·32 mmol/l) and non-HDL cholesterol (–0·40 mmol/l) compared with non-viscous fibre. Thus, selecting a dietary pattern rich in viscous fibre foods such as oats, beans, fruits and vegetables such as apples, oranges, okra, eggplant or Brussel sprouts, may offer greater reductions in blood lipids compared with selecting non-viscous fibre types. Consuming a 3/4 cup serving of oat bran, one medium orange and 1/2 cup of cooked Brussel sprouts per day, for example, would be sufficient to reach clinically meaningful doses of viscous fibre(145). Additionally, choosing a small quantity of about 1 tablespoon per day of isolated viscous fibre sources such as those studied here may also offer health benefits. This has a strong practical application that should be considered in dietary recommendations, given the presently advocated amounts of total dietary fibre of > 30 g/d, which may be unrealistic in light of current average population intake being about half as much.

In comparison, other well-established and recommended dietary strategies associated with lipid lowering have produced more subtle differences in LDL cholesterol such as a diet rich in nuts (MD = −0·12 mmol/l) or soy protein (WMD = −0·12 mmol/l), low fat diet (MD = −0·11 mmol/l), DASH diet (MD = −0·1 mmol/l) or a Mediterranean diet (MD = −0·07 mmol/l)(Reference Del Gobbo, Falk and Feldman146Reference Blanco Mejia, Messina and Li150).

At present, the Canadian Cardiovascular Society has recognised the application of viscous fibres to a dietary portfolio including other cholesterol-lowering foods(Reference Anderson, Gregoire and Pearson2). Similarly, the 2019 European SC/EAS guidelines and the 2016 Chinese guidelines place particular emphasis on viscous fibre use in the context of the hypercholesterolaemic reductions(11). However, this shift towards physiological differentiation of fibre types has not been reflected in other lipid-lowering guidelines to date(Reference Grundy, Stone and Bailey151,Reference Kinoshita, Yokote and Arai152) .

Strengths

This is the first meta-analysis to our knowledge to comprehensively quantify the effect of non-HDL cholesterol and Apo-B of fibres. While LDL cholesterol remains the primary treatment target, these markers are part of the major lipid guidelines to guide therapy as alternate and plausibly more eminent targets for CVD risk reduction(Reference Anderson, Gregoire and Pearson2,Reference Lepor and Vogel153) . A further strength of the present study includes the largest number of RCT on dietary fibre to date, with findings generalisable to both healthy and hypercholesterolaemic individuals. The study population included a wide range of participants from several different countries with variations in background diet and CVD risk. Balancing the strengths and limitations, the overall evidence was graded as moderate-quality for LDL cholesterol, non-HDL cholesterol and ApoB.

Limitations

Limitations to this meta-analysis should be acknowledged. First, our pooled analyses for LDL and non-HDL cholesterol were subject to high heterogeneity which remained largely unexplained after a priori subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses downgrading the certainty of evidence. However, this may have been inevitable due to a sizable study number with a range of fibre types, doses, levels of background therapy and conditions included in the analysis which partially explained some inconsistency. Second, the median duration of trial is < 2 months. Longer intake studies are needed to demonstrate whether the benefit of non-viscous fibres remains. Third, the difference between end-of-treatment values were used when change from baseline values were not provided or could not be calculated. Lastly, due to recent inclusion of alternate lipid targets into clinical practice guidelines, few studies reported ApoB while non-HDL cholesterol was indirectly assessed.

Conclusions

In summary, this systematic review and meta-analysis presents a comprehensive synthesis of evidence to date of the therapeutic dose-dependent effects of viscous dietary fibres in the reduction of primary and alternative lipid markers relative to cereal-type fibres. Choosing a dietary pattern rich in viscous fibres or an addition of approximately a tablespoon per day of isolated viscous fibres may be utilised as an effective dietary means to reduce LDL cholesterol and the alternative lipid profile in adults with and without hypercholesterolaemia. Nevertheless, limitations raised by GRADE should be considered. Future research should directly examine ApoB endpoints relevant to guidelines and expand evidence on common fibres to corroborate the proposed relationship. These data at present make a convincing case to support emerging recommendations to improve strategies that focally increase viscous dietary fibre intake for CVD risk lowering.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Teruko Kishibe, Information Specialist, Scotiabank Health Sciences Library at St. Michael’s Hospital, for her help in the development of search terms used.

The authors’ responsibilities were as follows — E. J., A. K., A. J. and V. V.: designed the research; M. N., Y. K., H. V. T. H., E. J. and A. Z.: conducted the research, M. N. , Y. K., R. K., T. A. K., D. L., J. L. S.: performed or assisted in performing the statistical analysis of the data; E. J, M. N. and A. K.: wrote the manuscript draft; V. V., E. J. and J. L. S.: had primary responsibility for the final content; and all authors: contributed to the critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content and approved the final manuscript.

V.V. previously held the Canadian (2 410 556) and American (7 326 404) patents on the medical use of viscous fibre blend for reducing blood glucose for treatment of diabetes, increasing insulin sensitivity, and reducing systolic blood pressure and blood lipids. A.J. is part owner of INQUIS Clinical Research (formally Glycemic Index Laboratories, Inc.), a contract research organisation. J.L.S. has received research support from the Canadian Foundation for Innovation, Ontario Re-search Fund, Province of Ontario Ministry of Research and Innovation and Science, Canadian Institutes of health Research (CIHR), Diabetes Canada, American Society for Nutrition (ASN), International Nut and Dried Fruit Council (INC) Foundation, National Honey Board (the USA. Department of Agriculture [USDA] honey ‘Checkoff’ program), Institute for the Advancement of Food and Nutrition Sciences (IAFNS), Pulse Canada, Quaker Oats Center of Excellence, The United Soybean Board (the USDA soy ‘Checkoff’ program), The Tate and Lyle Nutritional Re-search Fund at the University of Toronto, The Glycemic Control and Cardiovascular Disease in Type 2 Diabetes Fund at the University of Toronto (a fund established by the Alberta Pulse Growers), The Plant Protein Fund at the University of Toronto (a fund which has received contributions from IFF), and The Nutrition Trialists Fund at the University of Toronto (a fund established by an inaugural donation from the Calorie Control Council). He has received food donations to support randomised controlled trials from the Almond Board of California, California Walnut Commission, Peanut Institute, Barilla, Unilever/Upfield, Unico/Primo, Loblaw Compa-nies, Quaker, Kellogg Canada, WhiteWave Foods/Danone, Nutrartis and Dairy Farmers of Canada. He has received travel support, speaker fees and/or honoraria from ASN, Danone, Dairy Farmers of Canada, FoodMinds LLC, Nestlé, Abbott, General Mills, Nutrition Communications, International Food Information Council (IFIC), Calorie Control Council, International Sweeteners Association and International Glutamate Technical Committee. He has or has had consulting arrangements with Perkins Coie LLP, Tate & Lyle, Phynova and INQUIS Clinical Re-search. He is a former member of the European Fruit Juice Association Scientific Expert Panel and former member of the Soy Nutrition Institute (SNI) Scientific Advisory Committee. He is on the Clinical Practice Guidelines Expert Committees of Diabetes Canada, European Association for the study of Diabetes (EASD), Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) and Obesity Canada/Canadian Association of Bariatric Physicians and Surgeons. He serves or has served as an unpaid member of the Board of Trustees and an unpaid scientific advisor for the Carbohydrates Committee of IAFNS. He is a member of the International Carbohydrate Quality Consortium (ICQC), Executive Board Member of the Diabetes and Nutrition Study Group (DNSG) of the EASD and Director of the Toronto 3D Knowledge Synthesis and Clinical Trials foundation. His spouse is an employee of AB InBev. T.A.K. has received research support from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the International Life Science Institute (ILSI) and National Honey Board. He was received funding from the Toronto 3D Knowledge Synthesis and Clinical Trials foundation. All other authors declare no conflict of interest.

None of the sponsors had a role in any aspect of the current study, including design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis and interpretation of the data; and preparation, review and approval of the manuscript or decision to publish.

Supplementary material

For supplementary material accompanying this paper visit https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114522002355

Footnotes

Elena Jovanovski and Michelle Nguyen are co-first authors.

References

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services & U.S. Department of Agriculture (2015) 2015–2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans 8th Edition. http://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/ (accessed July 2020).Google Scholar
Anderson, TJ, Gregoire, J, Pearson, GJ, et al. (2016) 2016 Canadian cardiovascular society guidelines for the management of dyslipidemia for the prevention of cardiovascular disease in the adult. Can J Cardiol 32, 12631282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aller, R, de Luis, DA, Izaola, O, et al. (2004) Effect of soluble fiber intake in lipid and glucose levels in healthy subjects: a randomized clinical trial. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 65, 711.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hunninghake, DB, Miller, VT, LaRosa, JC, et al. (1994) Long-term treatment of hypercholesterolemia with dietary fiber. Am J Med 97, 504508.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jenkins, DJ, Kendall, CW, Vuksan, V, et al. (2002) Soluble fiber intake at a dose approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for a claim of health benefits: serum lipid risk factors for cardiovascular disease assessed in a randomized controlled crossover trial. Am J Clin Nutr 75, 834839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cicero, AFG, Fogacci, F, Stoian, AP, et al. (2021) Nutraceuticals in the management of dyslipidemia: which, when, and for whom? Could nutraceuticals help low-risk individuals with non-optimal lipid levels? Curr Atheroscler Rep 23, 57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, JM (2014) CODEX-aligned dietary fiber definitions help to bridge the ‘fiber gap’. Nutr J 13, 34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mudgil, D & Barak, S (2013) Composition properties and health benefits of indigestible carbohydrate polymers as dietary fiber: a review. Int J Biol Macromol 61, 16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, BA, Mikkelsen, D, Flanagan, BM, et al. (2019) ‘Dietary fibre’: moving beyond the ‘soluble/insoluble’ classification for monogastric nutrition, with an emphasis on humans and pigs. J Anim Sci Biotechnol 10, 45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vuksan, V, Jenkins, AL, Rogovik, AL, et al. (2011) Viscosity rather than quantity of dietary fibre predicts cholesterol-lowering effect in healthy individuals. Br J Nutr 106, 13491352.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Task Force Members, ESC Committee for Practice Guidelines (CPG) & ESC National Cardiac Societies (2019) ESC/EAS guidelines for the management of dyslipidaemias: Lipid modification to reduce cardiovascular risk. Atherosclerosis 290, 140205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nerenberg, KA, Zarnke, KB, Leung, AA, et al. (2018) Hypertension Canada’s 2018 guidelines for diagnosis, risk assessment, prevention, and treatment of hypertension in adults and children. Can J Cardiol 34, 506525.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
US Food and Drug Administration (2019) CFR—Code of Federal Regulations Title 21— Food and Drugs Chapter I—Food and Drug Administration Department of Health and Human Services Subchapter B—Food for Human Consumption. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=101.81 (accessed July 2020).Google Scholar
EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products Nutrition and Allergies (2010) Scientific Opinion on the substantiation of health claims related to konjac mannan (glucomannan) and reduction of body weight (ID 854, 1556, 3725), reduction of post-prandial glycaemic responses (ID 1559), maintenance of normal blood glucose concentrations (ID 835, 3724), maintenance of normal (fasting) blood concentrations of triglycerides (ID 3217), maintenance of normal blood cholesterol concentrations (ID 3100, 3217), maintenance of normal bowel function (ID 834, 1557, 3901) and decreasing potentially pathogenic gastro-intestinal microorganisms (ID 1558) pursuant to Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006. EFSA J 8, 1798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swain, JF, Rouse, IL, Curley, CB, et al. (1990) Comparison of the effects of oat bran and low-fiber wheat on serum lipoprotein levels and blood pressure. N Engl J Med 322, 147152.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barsanti, L, Passarelli, V, Evangelista, V, et al. Chemistry, physico-chemistry and applications linked to biological activities of beta-glucans. Nat Prod Rep 28, 457466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dikeman, CL & Fahey, GC (2006) Viscosity as related to dietary fiber: a review. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 46, 649663.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marounek, M, Volek, Z, Synytsya, A, et al. (2007) Effect of pectin and amidated pectin on cholesterol homeostasis and cecal metabolism in rats fed a high-cholesterol diet. Physiol Res 56, 433442.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wong, JM & Jenkins, DJ (2007) Carbohydrate digestibility and metabolic effects. J Nutr 137, 2539s2546s.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Veronese, N, Solmi, M, Caruso, MG, et al. (2018) Dietary fiber and health outcomes: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Am J Clin Nutr 107, 436444.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jenkins, DJ, Kendall, CW, Augustin, LS, et al. (2002) Effect of wheat bran on glycemic control and risk factors for cardiovascular disease in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 25, 15221528.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weickert, MO & Pfeiffer, AF (2008) Metabolic effects of dietary fiber consumption and prevention of diabetes. J Nutr 138, 439442.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weickert, MO & Pfeiffer, AFH (2018) Impact of dietary fiber consumption on insulin resistance and the prevention of type 2 diabetes. J Nutr 148, 712.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reynolds, H, Quiter, E & Hunninghake, D (2000) Whole grain oat cereal lowers serum lipids. Top Clin Nutrition 15, 7483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higgins, JP, Thomas, J & Chandler, J (editors) (2011) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). www.handbook.cochrane.org (accessed July 2020).Google Scholar
Page, MJ, McKenzie, JE, Bossuyt, PM, et al. (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372, n71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Limberger-Bayer, VM, de Francisco, A, Chan, A, et al. (2014) Barley beta-glucans extraction and partial characterization. Food Chem 154, 8489.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, WJ & Anderson, JW (1981) Soluble and insoluble plant fiber in selected cereals and vegetables. Am J Clin Nutr 34, 10771082.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, JW & Bridges, SR (1988) Dietary fiber content of selected foods. Am J Clin Nutr 47, 440447.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whitehead, A, Beck, EJ, Tosh, S, et al. (2014) Cholesterol-lowering effects of oat beta-glucan: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Clin Nutr 100, 14131421.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Borenstein, M, Hedges, LV, Higgins, JPT, et al. (2009) Introduction to Meta-Analysis, 2nd ed. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvard University (2007) A Summary of Error Propagation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. https://sites.fas.harvard.edu/∼scphys/nsta/error_propagation.pdf (accessed April 2021).Google Scholar
Elbourne, DR, Altman, DG, Higgins, JP, et al. (2002) Meta-analyses involving cross-over trials: methodological issues. Int J Epidemiol 31, 140149.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duval, S & Tweedie, R (2000) Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics 56, 455463.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Balshem, H, Helfand, M, Schunemann, HJ, et al. (2011) GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 64, 401406.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guyatt, G, Oxman, AD, Akl, EA, et al. (2011) GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol 64, 383394.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guyatt, GH, Oxman, AD, Kunz, R, et al. (2011) GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 64, 395400.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guyatt, GH, Oxman, AD, Kunz, R, et al. (2011) GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence--imprecision. J Clin Epidemiol 64, 12831293.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guyatt, GH, Oxman, AD, Kunz, R, et al. (2011) GRADE guidelines: 8. Rating the quality of evidence--indirectness. J Clin Epidemiol 64, 13031310.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guyatt, GH, Oxman, AD, Kunz, R, et al. (2011) GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence--inconsistency. J Clin Epidemiol 64, 12941302.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guyatt, GH, Oxman, AD, Montori, V, et al. (2011) GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence--publication bias. J Clin Epidemiol 64, 12771282.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guyatt, GH, Oxman, AD, Sultan, S, et al. (2011) GRADE guidelines: 9. Rating up the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 64, 13111316.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guyatt, GH, Oxman, AD, Vist, G, et al. (2011) GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence--study limitations (risk of bias). J Clin Epidemiol 64, 407415.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brunetti, M, Shemilt, I, Pregno, S, et al. (2013) GRADE guidelines: 10. Considering resource use and rating the quality of economic evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 66, 140150.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guyatt, G, Oxman, AD, Sultan, S, et al. (2013) GRADE guidelines: 11. Making an overall rating of confidence in effect estimates for a single outcome and for all outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 66, 151157.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guyatt, GH, Oxman, AD, Santesso, N, et al. (2013) GRADE guidelines: 12. Preparing summary of findings tables-binary outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 66, 158172.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guyatt, GH, Thorlund, K, Oxman, AD, et al. (2013) GRADE guidelines: 13. Preparing summary of findings tables and evidence profiles-continuous outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 66, 173183.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aoe, S, Ichinose, Y, Kohyama, N, et al. (2017) Effects of high beta-glucan barley on visceral fat obesity in Japanese individuals: a randomized, double-blind study. Nutrition 42, 16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Behall, KM, Scholfield, DJ & Hallfrisch, J (2004) Diets containing barley significantly reduce lipids in mildly hypercholesterolemic men and women. Am J Clin Nutr 80, 11851193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Behall, KM, Scholfield, DJ & Hallfrisch, J (2004) Lipids significantly reduced by diets containing barley in moderately hypercholesterolemic men. J Am Coll Nutr 23, 5562.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ezatagha, A (2007) The Effect of Barley Beta-Glucan Concentrate of LDL-Cholesterol and Other Risk Factors for Cardiovascular Disease (Thesis). Toronto: University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Lupton, JR, Robinson, MC & Morin, JL (1994) Cholesterol-lowering effect of barley bran flour and oil. J Am Diet Assoc 94, 6570.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McIntosh, GH, Whyte, J, McArthur, R, et al. (1991) Barley and wheat foods: influence on plasma cholesterol concentrations in hypercholesterolemic men. Am J Clin Nutr 53, 12051209.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Newman, RK, Lewis, SE, Newman, CW, et al. (1989) Hypocholesterolemic effect of barley foods on healthy men. Nutr Rep Int 39, 749760.Google Scholar
Rondanelli, M, Opizzi, A, Monteferrario, F, et al. (2011) Beta-glucan- or rice bran-enriched foods: a comparative crossover clinical trial on lipidic pattern in mildly hypercholesterolemic men. Eur J Clin Nutr 65, 864871.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shimizu, C, Kihara, M, Aoe, S, et al. (2008) Effect of high beta-glucan barley on serum cholesterol concentrations and visceral fat area in Japanese men--a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial. Plant Foods Hum Nutr 63, 2125.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sundberg, B (2008) Cholesterol lowering effects of a barley fibre flake product. Agro Food Ind Hi-Tech 19, 1417.Google Scholar
Velikonja, A, Lipoglavsek, L, Zorec, M, et al. (2019) Alterations in gut microbiota composition and metabolic parameters after dietary intervention with barley beta glucans in patients with high risk for metabolic syndrome development. Anaerobe 55, 6777.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, Y, Harding, SV, Eck, P, et al. (2016) High-molecular-weight beta-glucan decreases serum cholesterol differentially based on the CYP7A1 rs3808607 polymorphism in mildly hypercholesterolemic adults. J Nutr 146, 720727.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, JW, Gilinsky, NH, Deakins, DA, et al. (1991) Lipid responses of hypercholesterolemic men to oat-bran and wheat-bran intake. Am J Clin Nutr 54, 678683.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bremer, JM, Scott, RS & Lintott, CJ (1991) Oat bran and cholesterol reduction: evidence against specific effect. Aust N Z J Med 21, 422426.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Charlton, KE, Tapsell, LC, Batterham, MJ, et al. (2012) Effect of 6 weeks’ consumption of beta-glucan-rich oat products on cholesterol levels in mildly hypercholesterolaemic overweight adults. Br J Nutr 107, 10371047.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Connolly, ML, Tzounis, X, Tuohy, KM, et al. (2016) Hypocholesterolemic and prebiotic effects of a whole-grain oat-based granola breakfast cereal in a cardio-metabolic ‘At Risk’ population. Front Microbiol 7, 1675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, MH, Dugan, LD, Burns, JH, et al. (1991) The hypocholesterolemic effects of beta-glucan in oatmeal and oat bran. A dose-controlled study. JAMA 265, 18331839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davy, BM, Davy, KP, Ho, RC, et al. (2002) High-fiber oat cereal compared with wheat cereal consumption favorably alters LDL-cholesterol subclass and particle numbers in middle-aged and older men. Am J Clin Nutr 76, 351358.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gerhardt, AL & Gallo, NB (1998) Full-fat rice bran and oat bran similarly reduce hypercholesterolemia in humans. J Nutr 128, 865869.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gold, KV & Davidson, DM (1988) Oat bran as a cholesterol-reducing dietary adjunct in a young, healthy population. West J Med 148, 299302.Google Scholar
Johnston, L, Reynolds, HR, Hunninghake, DB, et al. (1998) Cholesterol lower benefits of a whole grain oat ready to-eat cereal. Nutr Clin Care 1, 612.Google Scholar
Kabir, M, Oppert, JM, Vidal, H, et al. (2002) Four-week low-glycemic index breakfast with a modest amount of soluble fibers in type 2 diabetic men. Metabolism 51, 819826.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Karmally, W, Montez, MG, Palmas, W, et al. (2005) Cholesterol-lowering benefits of oat-containing cereal in Hispanic americans. J Am Diet Assoc 105, 967970.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kerckhoffs, DA, Hornstra, G & Mensink, RP (2003) Cholesterol-lowering effect of beta-glucan from oat bran in mildly hypercholesterolemic subjects may decrease when beta-glucan is incorporated into bread and cookies. Am J Clin Nutr 78, 221227.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kestin, M, Moss, R, Clifton, PM, et al. (1990) Comparative effects of three cereal brans on plasma lipids, blood pressure, and glucose metabolism in mildly hypercholesterolemic men. Am J Clin Nutr 52, 661666.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lepre, F & Crane, S (1992) Effect of oatbran on mild hyperlipidaemia. Med J Aust 157, 305308.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liao, MY, Shen, YC, Chiu, HF, et al. (2019) Down-regulation of partial substitution for staple food by oat noodles on blood lipid levels: a randomized, double-blind, clinical trial. J Food Drug Anal 27, 93100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liatis, S, Tsapogas, P, Chala, E, et al. (2009) The consumption of bread enriched with betaglucan reduces LDL-cholesterol and improves insulin resistance in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Metab 35, 115120.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lovegrove, JA, Clohessy, A, Milon, H, et al. (2000) Modest doses of beta-glucan do not reduce concentrations of potentially atherogenic lipoproteins. Am J Clin Nutr 72, 4955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maki, KC, Beiseigel, JM, Jonnalagadda, SS, et al. (2010) Whole-grain ready-to-eat oat cereal, as part of a dietary program for weight loss, reduces low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in adults with overweight and obesity more than a dietary program including low-fiber control foods. J Am Diet Assoc 110, 205214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Momenizadeh, A, Heidari, R, Sadeghi, M, et al. (2014) Effects of oat and wheat bread consumption on lipid profile, blood sugar, and endothelial function in hypercholesterolemic patients: a randomized controlled clinical trial. ARYA Atheroscler 10, 259265.Google ScholarPubMed
Noakes, M, Clifton, PM, Nestel, PJ, et al. (1996) Effect of high-amylose starch and oat bran on metabolic variables and bowel function in subjects with hypertriglyceridemia. Am J Clin Nutr 64, 944951.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Onning, G, Wallmark, A, Persson, M, et al. (1999) Consumption of oat milk for 5 weeks lowers serum cholesterol and LDL cholesterol in free-living men with moderate hypercholesterolemia. Ann Nutr Metab 43, 301309.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Panahi, S (2006) The Effect of Oat Beta-Glucan on Glycemia and Blood Lipid Risk Factors for Cardiovascular Disease, Thesis. Toronto: University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Pick, ME, Hawrysh, ZJ, Gee, MI, et al. (1996) Oat bran concentrate bread products improve long-term control of diabetes: a pilot study. J Am Diet Assoc 96, 12541261.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pins, JJ, Geleva, D, Keenan, JM, et al. (2002) Do whole-grain oat cereals reduce the need for antihypertensive medications and improve blood pressure control? J Fam Pract 51, 353359.Google ScholarPubMed
Reyna-Villasmil, N, Bermudez-Pirela, V, Mengual-Moreno, E, et al. (2007) Oat-derived beta-glucan significantly improves HDLC and diminishes LDLC and non-HDL cholesterol in overweight individuals with mild hypercholesterolemia. Am J Ther 14, 203212.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Romero, AL, Romero, JE, Galaviz, S, et al. (1998) Cookies enriched with psyllium or oat bran lower plasma LDL cholesterol in normal and hypercholesterolemic men from Northern Mexico. J Am Coll Nutr 17, 601608.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Souza, SR, de Oliveira, GM, Luiz, RR, et al. (2016) Effects of oat bran and nutrition counseling on the lipid and glucose profile and anthropometric parameters of hypercholesterolemia patients. Nutr Hosp 33, 123–30.Google Scholar
Theuwissen, E & Mensink, RP (2007) Simultaneous intake of beta-glucan and plant stanol esters affects lipid metabolism in slightly hypercholesterolemic subjects. J Nutr 137, 583588.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thongoun, P, Pavadhgul, P, Bumrungpert, A, et al. (2013) Effect of oat consumption on lipid profiles in hypercholesterolemic adults. J Med Assoc Thai 5, S2532.Google Scholar
Turnbull, WH & Leeds, AR (1987) Reduction of total and LDL-cholesterol in plasma by rolled oats. J Clin Nutr Gastroentrol 2, 177181.Google Scholar
Uusitupa, MI, Ruuskanen, E, Makinen, E, et al. (1992) A controlled study on the effect of beta-glucan-rich oat bran on serum lipids in hypercholesterolemic subjects: relation to apolipoprotein E phenotype. J Am Coll Nutr 11, 651659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Horn, L, Liu, K, Gerber, J, et al. (2001) Oats and soy in lipid-lowering diets for women with hypercholesterolemia: is there synergy? J Am Diet Assoc 101, 13191325.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whyte, JL, McArthur, R, Topping, D, et al. (1992) Oat bran lowers plasma cholesterol levels in mildly hypercholesterolemic men. J Am Diet Assoc 92, 446449.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wolever, TM, Tosh, SM, Gibbs, AL, et al. (2010) Physicochemical properties of oat beta-glucan influence its ability to reduce serum LDL cholesterol in humans: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Clin Nutr 92, 723732.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, J, Li, L, Song, P, et al. (2012) Randomized controlled trial of oatmeal consumption v. noodle consumption on blood lipids of urban Chinese adults with hypercholesterolemia. Nutr J 11, 54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reimer, RA, Yamaguchi, H, Eller, LK, et al. (2013) Changes in visceral adiposity and serum cholesterol with a novel viscous polysaccharide in Japanese adults with abdominal obesity. Obesity 21, E37987.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vuksan, V, Jenkins, DJ, Spadafora, P, et al. (1999) Konjac-mannan (glucomannan) improves glycemia and other associated risk factors for coronary heart disease in type 2 diabetes. A randomized controlled metabolic trial. Diabetes Care 22, 913919.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vuksan, V, Sievenpiper, JL, Owen, R, et al. (2000) Beneficial effects of viscous dietary fiber from Konjac-mannan in subjects with the insulin resistance syndrome: results of a controlled metabolic trial. Diabetes Care 23, 914.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, JW, Davidson, MH, Blonde, L, et al. (2000) Long-term cholesterol-lowering effects of psyllium as an adjunct to diet therapy in the treatment of hypercholesterolemia. Am J Clin Nutr 71, 14331438.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, JW, Floore, TL, Geil, PB, et al. (1991) Hypocholesterolemic effects of different bulk-forming hydrophilic fibers as adjuncts to dietary therapy in mild to moderate hypercholesterolemia. Arch Intern Med 151, 15971602.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, JW, Riddell-Mason, S, Gustafson, NJ, et al. (1992) Cholesterol-lowering effects of psyllium-enriched cereal as an adjunct to a prudent diet in the treatment of mild to moderate hypercholesterolemia. Am J Clin Nutr 56, 9398.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, JW, Zettwoch, N, Feldman, T, et al. (1988) Cholesterol-lowering effects of psyllium hydrophilic mucilloid for hypercholesterolemic men. Arch Intern Med 148, 292296.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Asghar, J & Bashir, A (2011) Single blind and placebo controlled research study of effects of Ispaghula on serum lipids. Pak J Med Health Sci 5, 654657.Google Scholar
Bell, LP, Hectorne, K, Reynolds, H, et al. (1989) Cholesterol-lowering effects of psyllium hydrophilic mucilloid. Adjunct therapy to a prudent diet for patients with mild to moderate hypercholesterolemia. JAMA 261, 34193423.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Everson, GT, Daggy, BP, McKinley, C, et al. (1992) Effects of psyllium hydrophilic mucilloid on LDL-cholesterol and bile acid synthesis in hypercholesterolemic men. J Lipid Res 33, 11831192.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flannery, J & Raulerson, A (2000) Hypercholesterolemia: a look at low-cost treatment and treatment adherence. J Am Acad Nurse Pract 12, 462466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenkins, DJ, Wolever, TM, Vidgen, E, et al. (1997) Effect of psyllium in hypercholesterolemia at two monounsaturated fatty acid intakes. Am J Clin Nutr 65, 15241533.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levin, EG, Miller, VT, Muesing, RA, et al. (1990) Comparison of psyllium hydrophilic mucilloid and cellulose as adjuncts to a prudent diet in the treatment of mild to moderate hypercholesterolemia. Arch Intern Med 150, 18221827.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maciejko, JJ, Brazg, R, Shah, A, et al. (1994) Psyllium for the reduction of cholestyramine-associated gastrointestinal symptoms in the treatment of primary hypercholesterolemia. Arch Fam Med 3, 955960.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pal, S, Ho, S, Gahler, RJ, et al. (2017) Effect on insulin, glucose and lipids in overweight/obese Australian adults of 12 months consumption of two different fibre supplements in a randomised trial. Nutrients 9, 91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sola, R, Bruckert, E, Valls, RM, et al. (2010) Soluble fibre (Plantago ovata husk) reduces plasma low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, triglycerides, insulin, oxidised LDL and systolic blood pressure in hypercholesterolaemic patients: a randomised trial. Atherosclerosis 211, 630637.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spence, JD, Huff, MW, Heidenheim, P, et al. (1995) Combination therapy with colestipol and psyllium mucilloid in patients with hyperlipidemia. Ann Intern Med 123, 493499.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sprecher, DL, Harris, BV, Goldberg, AC, et al. (1993) Efficacy of psyllium in reducing serum cholesterol levels in hypercholesterolemic patients on high- or low-fat diets. Ann Intern Med 119, 545554.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Summerbell, CD, Manley, P, et al. (1994) The effects of psyllium on blood lipids in hypercholesterolaemic subjects. J Hum Nutr Diet 7, 147151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziai, SA, Larijani, B, Akhoondzadeh, S, et al. (2005) Psyllium decreased serum glucose and glycosylated hemoglobin significantly in diabetic outpatients. J Ethnopharmacol 102, 202207.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aro, A, Uusitupa, M, Voutilainen, E, et al. (1981) Improved diabetic control and hypocholesterolaemic effect induced by long-term dietary supplementation with guar gum in type 2 (insulin-independent) diabetes. Diabetologia 21, 2933.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aro, A, Uusitupa, M, Voutilainen, E, et al. (1984) Effects of guar gum in male subjects with hypercholesterolemia. Am J Clin Nutr 39, 911916.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blake, DE, Hamblett, CJ, Frost, PG, et al. (1997) Wheat bread supplemented with depolymerized guar gum reduces the plasma cholesterol concentration in hypercholesterolemic human subjects. Am J Clin Nutr 65, 107113.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fuessl, HS, Williams, G, Adrian, TE, et al. (1987) Guar sprinkled on food: effect on glycaemic control, plasma lipids and gut hormones in non-insulin dependent diabetic patients. Diabet Med 4, 463468.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Makkonen, M, Simpanen, AL, Saarikoski, S, et al. (1993) Endocrine and metabolic effects of guar gum in menopausal women. Gynecol Endocrinol 7, 135141.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McIvor, ME, Cummings, CC, Van Duyn, MA, et al. (1986) Long-term effects of guar gum on blood lipids. Atherosclerosis 60, 713.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peterson, DB, Ellis, PR, Baylis, JM, et al. (1987) Low dose guar in a novel food product: improved metabolic control in non-insulin-dependent diabetes. Diabetes Med 4, 111115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sels, JP, Postmes, TJ, Nieman, F, et al. (1993) Effects of guar bread in type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Eur J Intern Med 4, 193200.Google Scholar
Tuomilehto, J, Karttunen, P, Vinni, S, et al. (1983) A double-blind evaluation of guar gum in patients with dyslipidaemia. Hum Nutr Clin Nutr 37, 109116.Google ScholarPubMed
Tuomilehto, J, Voutilainen, E, Huttunen, J, et al. (1980) Effect of guar gum on body weight and serum lipids in hypercholesterolemic females. Acta Med Scand 208, 4548.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turner, PR, Tuomilehto, J, Happonen, P, et al. (1990) Metabolic studies on the hypolipidaemic effect of guar gum. Atherosclerosis 81, 145150.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Uusitupa, M, Siitonen, O, Savolainen, K, et al. (1989) Metabolic and nutritional effects of long-term use of guar gum in the treatment of noninsulin-dependent diabetes of poor metabolic control. Am J Clin Nutr 49, 345351.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Uusitupa, M, Sodervik, H, Silvasti, M, et al. (1990) Effects of a gel forming dietary fiber, guar gum, on the absorption of glibenclamide and metabolic control and serum lipids in patients with non-insulin-dependent (type 2) diabetes. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol 28, 153157.Google ScholarPubMed
Uusitupa, M, Tuomilehto, J, Karttunen, P, et al. (1984) Long term effects of guar gum on metabolic control, serum cholesterol and blood pressure levels in type 2 (non-insulin-dependent) diabetic patients with high blood pressure. Ann Clin Res 43, 126131.Google Scholar
Vaaler, S, Hanssen, KF, Dahl-Jorgensen, K, et al. (1986) Diabetic control is improved by guar gum and wheat bran supplementation. Diabetes Med 3, 230233.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vuorinen-Markkola, H, Sinisalo, M & Koivisto, VA (1992) Guar gum in insulin-dependent diabetes: effects on glycemic control and serum lipoproteins. Am J Clin Nutr 56, 10561060.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hillman, LC, Peters, SG, Fisher, CA, et al. (1985) The effects of the fiber components pectin, cellulose and lignin on serum cholesterol levels. Am J Clin Nutr 42, 207213.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reimer, RA, Wharton, S, Green, TJ, et al. (2021) Effect of a functional fibre supplement on glycemic control when added to a year-long medically supervised weight management program in adults with type 2 diabetes. Eur J Nutr 60, 12371251.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pourbehi, F, Ayremlou, P, Mehdizadeh, A, et al. (2018) Effect of psyllium supplementation on insulin resistance and lipid profile in non-diabetic women with polycystic ovary syndrome: a randomized placebo-controlled trial. Int J Women’s Health Reprod Sci 8, 184191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nyman, M, Nguyen, TD, Wikman, O, et al. (2020) Oat bran increased fecal butyrate and prevented gastrointestinal symptoms in patients with quiescent ulcerative colitis—randomized controlled trial. Crohn’s & Colitis 360 2, otaa005.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jovanovski, E, Khayyat, R, Zurbau, A, et al. (2019) Should viscous fiber supplements be considered in diabetes control? Results from a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Diabetes Care 42, 755766.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Khan, K, Jovanovski, E, Ho, HVT, et al. (2018) The effect of viscous soluble fiber on blood pressure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis 28, 313.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wood, PJ, Braaten, JT, Scott, FW, et al. (1994) Effect of dose and modification of viscous properties of oat gum on plasma glucose and insulin following an oral glucose load. Br J Nutr 72, 731743.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Truswell, AS (2002) Cereal grains and coronary heart disease. Eur J Clin Nutr 56, 114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jenkins, DJ, Kendall, CW, Vuksan, V, et al. (1999) Effect of wheat bran on serum lipids: influence of particle size and wheat protein. J Am Coll Nutr 18, 159165.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jenkins, DJ, Kendall, CW, McKeown-Eyssen, G, et al. (2008) Effect of a low-glycemic index or a high-cereal fiber diet on type 2 diabetes: a randomized trial. JAMA 300, 27422753.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Giacco, R, Lappi, J, Costabile, G, et al. (2013) Effects of rye and whole wheat v. refined cereal foods on metabolic risk factors: a randomised controlled two-centre intervention study. Clin Nutr 32, 941949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Honsek, C, Kabisch, S, Kemper, M, et al. (2018) Fibre supplementation for the prevention of type 2 diabetes and improvement of glucose metabolism: the randomised controlled Optimal Fibre Trial (OptiFiT). Diabetologia 61, 12951305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munoz, JM, Sandstead, HH, Jacob, RA, et al. (1979) Effects of some cereal brans and textured vegetable protein on plasma lipids. Am J Clin Nutr 32, 580592.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, L, Rosner, B, Willett, WW, et al. (1999) Cholesterol-lowering effects of dietary fiber: a meta-analysis. Am J Clin Nutr 69, 3042.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dieticans of Canada (2012) Food Sources of Soluble Fibre. https://carleton.ca/healthy-workplace/wp-content/uploads/soluble-fibre.pdf (accessed April 2021).Google Scholar
Del Gobbo, LC, Falk, MC, Feldman, R, et al. (2015) Effects of tree nuts on blood lipids, apolipoproteins, and blood pressure: systematic review, meta-analysis, and dose-response of 61 controlled intervention trials. Am J Clin Nutr 102, 13471356.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lu, M, Wan, Y, Yang, B, et al. (2018) Effects of low-fat compared with high-fat diet on cardiometabolic indicators in people with overweight and obesity without overt metabolic disturbance: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Br J Nutr 119, 96108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rees, K, Hartley, L, Flowers, N, et al. (2013) ‘Mediterranean’ dietary pattern for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013, Cd009825.Google Scholar
Siervo, M, Lara, J, Chowdhury, S, et al. (2015) Effects of the Dietary Approach to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet on cardiovascular risk factors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Nutr 113, 115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blanco Mejia, S, Messina, M, Li, SS, et al. (2019) A meta-analysis of 46 studies identified by the FDA demonstrates that soy protein decreases circulating LDL and total cholesterol concentrations in adults. J Nutr 149, 968981.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grundy, SM, Stone, NJ, Bailey, AL, et al. (2019) 2018 AHA/ACC/AACVPR/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/ADA/AGS/APhA/ASPC/NLA/PCNA guideline on the management of blood cholesterol: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation 139, e1082e143.Google Scholar
Kinoshita, M, Yokote, K, Arai, H, et al. (2018) Japan Atherosclerosis Society (JAS) guidelines for prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases 2017. J Atheroscler Thromb 25, 846984.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lepor, NE & Vogel, RE (2001) Summary of the third report of the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III. Rev Cardiovasc Med 2, 160165.Google ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Flow of literature. Summary of the number of articles that were identified and included in the meta-analysis of the effect of viscous fibre on LDL cholesterol, non-HDL cholesterol and ApoB. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and CINAHL databases were searched.

Figure 1

Table 1. Summary of included trials

Figure 2

Fig. 2. Superplot of randomised controlled trials investigating the effect of viscous dietary fibres on LDL cholesterol (mmol/l). Mean differences (95 % CI) between viscous and non-viscous, cereal-type dietary fibre are generated using the generic inverse variance random-effects model. The red diamonds represent the pooled effect estimates for each fibre type, while the black diamond represents the pooled effect estimate from all fibre types. I2 represents the estimated heterogeneity between individual studies.

Figure 3

Fig. 3. Superplot of randomised controlled trials investigating the effect of viscous dietary fibres on non-HDL cholesterol (mmol/l). Mean differences (95 % CI) between viscous and non-viscous, cereal-type dietary fibre are generated using the generic inverse variance random-effects model. The red diamonds represent the pooled effect estimates for each fibre type, while the black diamond represents the pooled effect estimate from all fibre types. I2 represents the estimated heterogeneity between individual studies.

Figure 4

Fig. 4. Superplot of randomised controlled trials investigating the effect of viscous dietary fibres on ApoB (g/l). Mean differences (95 % CI) between viscous and non-viscous, cereal-type fibre were generated using the generic inverse variance random-effects model. The red diamonds represent the pooled effect estimates for each fibre type, while the black diamond represents the pooled effect estimate from all fibre types. I2 represents the estimated heterogeneity between individual studies.

Supplementary material: PDF

Jovanovski et al. supplementary material

Jovanovski et al. supplementary material

Download Jovanovski et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 1.2 MB