The Effects Of Soluble Dietary Fiber On Blood Pressure: A Systematic Review And Meta Analysis Of Randomized Controlled Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective Epidemiological evidence suggests an inverse relationship between soluble fiber intake and blood pressure, while evidence from randomized controlled trials remains largely controversial and poorly characterized. The present study aim is to conduct a systematic review and a meta‐analysis of randomly controlled trials to assess the effects of soluble fiber intake on blood pressure. Study Design Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, through to January 2015 were searched. Randomized, controlled, clinical trials that were ≥30 days in duration testing soluble fiber supplementation against an adequate comparator were included. Two independent reviewers extracted the data and assessed study quality and risk of bias. Data were pooled using the generic inverse variance method with random effects model and were expressed as mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Study heterogeneity was estimated using Cochran Q‐statistic and quantified I 2 statistic. Studies were also assessed for their quality using the Heyland Methodological Quality Score and for risk of bias using Cochrane's risk of bias tool. Results Fourteen studies (n=1112 participants) were included for analysis. Soluble fiber had no effect on systolic (MD=1.00 mmHg [95% CI 2.46 to 0.46]) or diastolic (MD=L0.23 mmHg [95% CI 1.17, 0.71]) blood pressures. Substantial and moderate unexplained heterogeneity were present for the systolic (I 2 =63%, P=0.18) and diastolic (I 2 =40%, P=0.63) blood pressure analyses. Conclusion Pooled analyses show that dietary supplementation of soluble fiber from all sources is not associated with systolic or diastolic blood pressure reduction. More studies will need to be included in future meta analyses to better understand the potential blood pressure reducing effects of soluble fiber, especially in patients with hypertension, and to delineate potential benefits of highly viscous soluble fibers. Support or Funding Information Supported by Internal research funding.
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 | 0.030 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.029 | 0.038 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".