MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3170630755 · doi:10.1093/cdn/nzab041_004

Effect of Oats and Oat-Fiber on Glycemic Control in Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2021· review· en· W3170630755 on OpenAlexaffabout
Victoria Chen, Andreea Zurbau, Amna Ahmed, Tauseef Khan, Cyril W.C. Kendall, John L. Sievenpiper

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Developments in Nutrition · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicFood composition and properties
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlycemicMedicineMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trialInternal medicineDiabetes mellitusType 2 diabetesRelative riskSubgroup analysisConfidence intervalInsulinEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current approved health claims in Canada, US and Europe recognize the ability of oat ß-glucan to lower blood cholesterol; however, its ability to improve glycemic control is less certain. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to update the evidence of the effect of oats and oat-fiber on markers of glycemic control in people with and without diabetes. Here we present data for the subgroup with diabetes. MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched through September 23rd, 2020. We included randomized controlled trials of ≥ 2-weeks of sources of oat ß-glucan and measures of glycemic control in diabetes. Two independent reviewers extracted relevant data and assessed the risk of bias (Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 Tool). The outcomes were fasting plasma glucose (FPG), 2h-plasma glucose (2h-PG) from a 75 g-oral glucose tolerance test, HbA1c and fasting plasma insulin (FPI). Data were pooled using the generic inverse variance method. Heterogeneity was assessed (Cochran Q statistic) and quantified (I2 statistic). Pooled estimates were expressed as mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI). GRADE assessed the certainty of the evidence. Eligibility criteria were met by 5 trial comparisons (N = 359) in type 2 diabetes. No trials were identified in type 1 diabetes. Consumption of oat ß-glucan sources reduced FPG (MD = −0.37 mmol/L [95% CI: −0.70, −0.05 mmol/L], P = 0.03, I2 = 0.00%, PQ = 0.76) and 2h-PG (MD = −1.24 mmol/L [95% CI: −1.97, −0.51 mmol/L], P = 0.00, I2 = 0.00%, PQ = 0.56). There were non-significant reductions in HbA1c (MD = −0.12%, [95% CI: −0.26, 0.01%], P = 0.07, I2 = 0.00%, PQ = 1.00) and FPI (MD = −4.59 pmol/L, [95% CI: −14.71, 5.52 pmol/L], P = 0.37, I2 = 40.84%, PQ = 0.19). The certainty of evidence was high for 2h-PG and moderate for FPG, HbA1c and FPI (single downgrades for imprecision in each case). Current evidence provides a good indication that consumption of oat ß-glucan results in small improvements of glycemic control in type 2 diabetes. More high quality randomized trials are required to improve the precision of the pooled estimates. (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT04631913) Quaker Oats Center of Excellence, Diabetes Canada, Banting & Best Diabetes Centre, Toronto 3D foundation

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)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.057
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.132

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.057
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0290.040
Bibliometrics0.0090.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Developments in NutritionSame topicFood composition and propertiesFrench-language works237,207