Effect of Dietary Pulses on Blood Pressure: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Controlled Feeding Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend diet and lifestyle modifications for primary prevention and treatment of hypertension, but do not encourage dietary pulses specifically for lowering blood pressure (BP). To quantify the effect of dietary pulse interventions on BP and provide evidence for their inclusion in dietary guidelines, a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled feeding trials was conducted. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL were each searched from inception through 5 May 2013. Human trials ≥3 weeks that reported data for systolic, diastolic, and/or mean arterial BPs were included. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed methodological quality and risk of bias of included studies. Effect estimates were pooled using random effects models, and reported as mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was assessed (χ(2) test) and quantified (I(2)). RESULTS: Eight isocaloric trials (n = 554 participants with and without hypertension) were included in the analysis. Dietary pulses, exchanged isocalorically for other foods, significantly lowered systolic (MD = -2.25 mm Hg (95% CI, -4.22 to -0.28), P = 0.03) and mean arterial BP (MD = -0.75 mm Hg (95% CI, -1.44 to -0.06), P = 0.03), and diastolic BP non-significantly (MD = -0.71 mm Hg (95% CI, -1.74 to 0.31), P = 0.17). Heterogeneity was significant for all outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Dietary pulses significantly lowered BP in people with and without hypertension. Higher-quality large-scale trials are needed to support these findings. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01594567.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.025 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".