MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153288093 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-004971

Effect of green tea supplementation on blood pressure among overweight and obese adults: a protocol for a systematic review

2014· review· en· W2153288093 on OpenAlexaff
Guowei Li, Yuan Zhang, Lawrence Mbuagbaw, Anne Holbrook, Mitchell Levine, Lehana Thabane

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTea Polyphenols and Effects
Canadian institutionsSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonSt. Joseph's HospitalMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOverweightMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trialPlaceboMEDLINEClinical trialObesitySystematic reviewBlood pressurePhysical therapyProtocol (science)Internal medicineGerontologyPediatricsAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Emerging randomised controlled trials (RCTs) exploring the effect of green tea (GT) supplementation or GT extract (GTE) on blood pressure (BP) among overweight and obese adults yielded inconclusive results. We aim to conduct a systematic review to summarise the evidence of RCTs until now, to clarify the efficacy of GT supplementation or GTE in BP in overweight and obese populations. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE and ClinicalTrials.gov will be searched to retrieve potential RCTs. Unpublished studies will be identified by searching the abstract books or websites of the three major conference proceedings: the International Society of Hypertension, the Nutrition & Health Conference and the World Congress of Nutrition and Health. A random-effects meta-analysis will be performed to pool the mean difference for the change in BP from baseline (ie, postintervention BP minus baseline BP) between intervention groups and placebo groups of the included studies, presenting the pooled results with 95% CIs. Subgroups analyses will be conducted according to different doses of GT or GTE, trial duration, geographic regions, overweight versus obese participants, and participants with versus without change in body weight after intervention. Sensitivity analysis will be performed by excluding studies classified as having a high risk of bias, applying a fixed-effects model, using the postintervention BP for analyses and excluding trials with non-study cointerventions. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. It will be disseminated electronically and in print. Summarising the RCT evidence to clarify the efficacy in BP among overweight and obese adults will aid in making the dietary recommendation of GT and improving the clinical management of hypertension. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42014007273.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.078
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.091
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.411

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0780.091
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.020
Bibliometrics0.0120.011
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0070.009
Open science0.0060.006
Research integrity0.0090.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0630.011

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.421 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicTea Polyphenols and EffectsFrench-language works237,207