Effect of green tea supplementation on blood pressure among overweight and obese adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Emerging randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effect of green tea or green tea extract (GTE) supplementation on blood pressure (BP) among overweight and obese adults reported inconsistent findings. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to clarify the efficacy of green tea or GTE on BP among overweight and obese adults. METHODS: Electronic databases, conference proceedings and gray literature were searched systematically to include parallel and cross-over RCTs examining the efficacy of green tea or GTE on BP compared with placebo. Data were meta-analyzed using a random-effects model, to compare the mean difference of the change in BP from baseline in the intervention and the placebo groups. RESULTS: Fourteen RCTs with 971 participants (47% women) were pooled for analysis. Green tea or GTE produced a significant effect on both SBP (mean difference -1.42 mmHg, 95% confidence interval -2.47 to -0.36, P = 0.008; I = 52%, P = 0.01 for heterogeneity) and DBP (mean difference -1.25 mmHg, 95% confidence interval -2.32 to -0.19, P = 0.02; I = 74%, P < 0.001 for heterogeneity), compared with placebo. The quality of evidence across studies was low. Similar results were found in subgroup and sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: Among overweight and obese adults, green tea or GTE supplementation is found to cause a small but significant reduction in BP. More high-quality RCTs with large sample sizes are needed to further confirm the efficacy on BP and make strong recommendations for green tea or GTE supplementation among the overweight and obese adults.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".