MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285027203 · doi:10.1177/20543581221100023

The Effects of Resistant Starch Consumption in Adult Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease: A Systematic Review

2022· review· en· W4285027203 on OpenAlexaff
Kulwant Kingra, Sarah A. Curtis, Rebecca C. Mollard, Maryam Shamloo, Nicole Askin, Navdeep Tangri, Dylan MacKay

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDialysis and Renal Disease Management
Canadian institutionsSeven Oaks General HospitalUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineKidney diseaseInternal medicineCochrane LibraryRandomized controlled trialSystematic reviewRenal functionPlaceboMeta-analysisMEDLINEPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Resistant starches (RSs) are not digested by human digestive enzymes and pass through the upper digestive tract to become substrates for colonic bacteria. Resistant starch supplementation has shown promising results in altering the microbiota of animal models of chronic kidney disease (CKD). Resistant starch consumption may influence the production of uremic toxins in CKD. Objective: To conduct a systematic review to determine whether the consumption of RS reduces the progression of kidney disease in adult patients with CKD. Design: We included randomized controlled trials comparing RS supplementation to placebo, no treatment, or standard care. Cochrane Central, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases were searched. There was no limitation on publication date, but only English manuscripts were included. The search was conducted in July 2020. Patients: Adult outpatient populations with CKD, using any recognized diagnostic criteria. Measurements: The primary outcome was change in glomerular filtration rate (GFR) from baseline through the end of the trial in patients not on dialysis; secondary outcomes included change in uremic toxin concentrations (p-cresol/p-cresyl sulfate [p-CS], indoxyl sulfate [IS]) and inflammatory markers (tumor necrosis factor alpha [TNF-α], C-reactive protein [CRP], interleukin 6 [IL-6]) from baseline through the end of the trial, and changes in self-reported symptom scores. Methods: The Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias tool was used to assess risk of bias in included studies. The systematic review results are reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Results: We identified 4 unique studies, reported in 9 publications that met our inclusion criteria, including a total of 215 enrolled participants. Results were calculated using data from the longest reported follow-up time. The primary outcome of changes in kidney function markers was only studied in 1 trial; this trial reported an increase in creatinine and a decrease in blood urea nitrogen; no changes in GFR were reported. A review of the secondary outcomes showed an overall decline in IS, TNF-α, and IL-6, in RS groups, but with mixed results in p-CS and CRP/high-sensitivity CRP. Safety data showed that RS was well tolerated with no reports of excessive side effects. Limitations: We determined a meta-analysis was not feasible due to clinical heterogeneity between study populations and differences in reported outcomes in the included studies. Conclusion: There is limited and inconsistent evidence on the impact of RS in adult patients with CKD. Further research is needed to determine the safety and efficacy of RS supplementation in this population.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.009
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.277 · 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
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

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Kidney Health and DiseaseSame topicDialysis and Renal Disease ManagementFrench-language works237,207