MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309098769 · doi:10.1093/nutrit/nuac086

Effect of honey on cardiometabolic risk factors: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2022· review· en· W4309098769 on OpenAlexafffund
Amna Ahmed, Zujaja Tul‐Noor, Danielle Lee, Shamaila Bajwah, Zara Ahmed, Shanza Zafar, Maliha Syeda, Fakeha Jamil, Faizaan A. Qureshi, Fatima Zia, Rumsha Baig, Saniya Ahmed, Mobushra Tayyiba, Suleman Ahmad, Dan Ramdath, Rong Tsao, Steve W. Cui, Cyril W.C. Kendall, Russell J. de Souza, Tauseef Khan, John L. Sievenpiper

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrition Reviews · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBee Products Chemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityImpactAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaYork UniversityHamilton Health SciencesUniversity of TorontoPopulation Health Research InstituteUniversity of SaskatchewanSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersOntario Ministry of Research and InnovationBanting and Best Diabetes Centre, University of TorontoHealth CanadaInternational Nut and Dried Fruit CouncilUniversity of TorontoPhysicians' Services Incorporated FoundationCanada Foundation for InnovationU.S. Department of AgricultureDiabetes CanadaSaskatchewan Pulse GrowersMcMaster UniversityGeneral MillsCanola Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Honey BoardDanoneAlmond Board of CaliforniaUnited Soybean BoardLoblaw Companies LimitedPepsiCo
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineMeta-analysisCochrane LibraryGlycemicNonalcoholic fatty liver diseaseGastroenterologyEndocrinologyInsulinFatty liverDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Excess calories from free sugars are implicated in the epidemics of obesity and type 2 diabetes. Honey is a free sugar but is generally regarded as healthy. OBJECTIVE: The effect of honey on cardiometabolic risk factors was assessed via a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled trials using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched up to January 4, 2021, for controlled trials ≥1 week in duration that assessed the effect of oral honey intake on adiposity, glycemic control, lipids, blood pressure, uric acid, inflammatory markers, and markers of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. DATA EXTRACTION: Independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Data were pooled using the inverse variance method and expressed as mean differences (MDs) with 95%CIs. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. DATA ANALYSIS: A total of 18 controlled trials (33 trial comparisons, N = 1105 participants) were included. Overall, honey reduced fasting glucose (MD = -0.20 mmol/L, 95%CI, -0.37 to -0.04 mmol/L; low certainty of evidence), total cholesterol (MD = -0.18 mmol/L, 95%CI, -0.33 to -0.04 mmol/L; low certainty), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (MD = -0.16 mmol/L, 95%CI, -0.30 to -0.02 mmol/L; low certainty), fasting triglycerides (MD = -0.13 mmol/L, 95%CI, -0.20 to -0.07 mmol/L; low certainty), and alanine aminotransferase (MD = -9.75 U/L, 95%CI, -18.29 to -1.21 U/L; low certainty) and increased high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (MD = 0.07 mmol/L, 95%CI, 0.04-0.10 mmol/L; high certainty). There were significant subgroup differences by floral source and by honey processing, with robinia honey, clover honey, and raw honey showing beneficial effects on fasting glucose and total cholesterol. CONCLUSION: Honey, especially robinia, clover, and unprocessed raw honey, may improve glycemic control and lipid levels when consumed within a healthy dietary pattern. More studies focusing on the floral source and the processing of honey are required to increase certainty of the evidence. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number CRD42015023580.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.886
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0230.012
Bibliometrics0.0000.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.221 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations19
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNutrition ReviewsSame topicBee Products Chemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207