MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2795599428 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019438

Effect of pasta in the context of low-glycaemic index dietary patterns on body weight and markers of adiposity: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials in adults

2018· review· en· W2795599428 on OpenAlexafffund
Laura Chiavaroli, Cyril W.C. Kendall, Catherine R. Braunstein, Sonia Blanco Mejía, Lawrence A. Leiter, David J.A. Jenkins, John L. Sievenpiper

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicFood composition and properties
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of SaskatchewanSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchEuropean Association for the Study of DiabetesEuropean Foundation for the Study of Diabetes
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisContext (archaeology)Randomized controlled trialBody mass indexGlycaemic indexIndex (typography)Systematic reviewMEDLINEInternal medicineGerontologyPhysical therapyGlycemic indexDiabetes mellitusEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective Carbohydrate staples such as pasta have been implicated in the obesity epidemic. It is unclear whether pasta contributes to weight gain or like other low-glycaemic index (GI) foods contributes to weight loss. We synthesised the evidence of the effect of pasta on measures of adiposity. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Data sources MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library were searched through 7 February 2017. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies We included randomised controlled trials ≥3 weeks assessing the effect of pasta alone or in the context of low-GI dietary patterns on measures of global (body weight, body mass index (BMI), body fat) and regional (waist circumference (WC), waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), sagittal abdominal diameter (SAD)) adiposity in adults. Data extraction and synthesis Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Data were pooled using the generic inverse-variance method and expressed as mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs. Heterogeneity was assessed (Cochran Q statistic) and quantified (I 2 statistic). GRADE assessed the certainty of the evidence. Results We identified no trial comparisons of the effect of pasta alone and 32 trial comparisons (n=2448 participants) of the effect of pasta in the context of low-GI dietary patterns. Pasta in the context of low-GI dietary patterns significantly reduced body weight (MD=−0.63 kg; 95% CI −0.84 to –0.42 kg) and BMI (MD=−0.26 kg/m 2 ; 95% CI −0.36 to –0.16 kg/m 2 ) compared with higher-GI dietary patterns. There was no effect on other measures of adiposity. The certainty of the evidence was graded as moderate for body weight, BMI, WHR and SAD and low for WC and body fat. Conclusions Pasta in the context of low-GI dietary patterns does not adversely affect adiposity and even reduces body weight and BMI compared with higher-GI dietary patterns. Future trials should assess the effect of pasta in the context of other ‘healthy’ dietary patterns. Trial registration number NCT02961088 ; Results.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.514
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0290.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.103
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations58
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicFood composition and propertiesFrench-language works237,207