Inulin-type fructans supplementation improves glycemic control for the prediabetes and type 2 diabetes populations: results from a GRADE-assessed systematic review and dose–response meta-analysis of 33 randomized controlled trials

Wang, Long; Yang, Hong; Huang, Hao; Zhang, Chao; Zuo, Hong-Xia; Xu, Pan; Niu, Yu-Ming; Wu, Shi-Shi

doi:10.1186/s12967-019-02159-0

Table 3 Subgroup meta-analysis of the effects of inulin-type fructans on glycemic indicators (FBG, HbA1c, FINS and HOMA-IR)

From: Inulin-type fructans supplementation improves glycemic control for the prediabetes and type 2 diabetes populations: results from a GRADE-assessed systematic review and dose–response meta-analysis of 33 randomized controlled trials

Subgroups	Fasting blood glucose (mmol/l)					HbA1c (%)					FINS (μU/ml)					HOMA-IR
Subgroups	n	WMD (95% CI)	P^a	I² (%)	P^b	n	WMD (95% CI)	P^a	I² (%)	P^b	n	WMD (95% CI)	P^a	I² (%)	P^b	n	WMD (95% CI)	P^a	I² (%)	P^b
Sex
Male	4	− 0.15 (− 0.32, 0.03)	0.106	0.0	0.599	2	− 0.18 (− 0.41, 0.05)	0.120	0.0	0.599	4	0.90 (0.30, 1.51)	0.004	71.2	< 0.001	3	− 0.09 (− 0.83, 0.66)	0.819	40.9	0.184
Female	6	− 0.51 (− 0.87, − 0.16)	0.004	81.7	< 0.001	5	− 0.56 (− 0.97, − 0.15)	0.008	72.3	0.006	4	− 0.37 (− 5.70, − 1.86)	< 0.001	47.7	0.125	3	− 1.84 (− 2.72, − 0.97)	< 0.001	56.9	0.098
ITF type
Inulin	12	− 0.28 (− 0.51, − 0.06)	0.012	74.5	< 0.001	7	− 0.48 (− 0.85, − 0.12)	0.010	47.6	0.076	11	− 1.20 (− 2.14, − 0.27)	0.012	84.5	< 0.001	10	− 0.63 (− 0.94, − 0.31)	< 0.001	76.9	< 0.001
Other kinds	21	− 0.15 (− 0.27, − 0.03)	0.011	25.3	0.142	5	− 0.28 (− 0.71, 0.14)	0.193	61.5	0.035	15	− 1.32 (− 2.07, − 0.56)	0.001	0.0	0.754	8	− 0.42 (− 0.92, 0.09)	0.108	18.9	0.281
Food based
ITF in drink	25	− 0.24 (− 0.39, − 0.09)	0.002	66.9	< 0.001	11	− 0.42 (− 0.74, − 0.11)	0.008	52.2	0.022	20	− 1.38 (− 2.06, − 0.70)	< 0.001	61.1	< 0.001	14	− 0.58 (− 0.87, − 0.28)	< 0.001	70.4	< 0.001
Others	8	− 0.12 (− 0.26, 0.03)	0.114	0.0	0.945	1	− 0.20 (− 0.44, 0.04)	0.101	~	~	6	− 0.28 (− 2.08, 1.51)	0.757	46.4	0.097	4	− 0.62 (− 1.27, 0.04)	0.067	9.2	0.347
Intervention type
ITF vs non-ITF	29	− 0.22 (− 0.35, − 0.10)	0.001	60.5	< 0.001	12	− 0.39 (− 0.65, − 0.13)	0.004	51.2	0.020	23	− 1.08 (− 1.81, − 0.36)	0.003	69.4	< 0.001	15	− 0.53 (− 0.81, − 0.25)	< 0.001	68.7	< 0.001
Synbiotics vs. probiotic	4	0.01 (− 0.21, 0.23)	0.944	0.0	0.697						3	− 2.10 (− 3.80, − 0.39)	0.016	34.5	0.217	3	− 1.16 (− 2.02, − 0.29)	0.009	0.0	0.928
Study design
Parallel	24	− 0.23 (− 0.39, − 0.08)	0.003	68.9	< 0.001	10	− 0.45 (− 0.77, − 0.13)	0.006	55.4	0.017	19	− 1.48 (− 2.25, − 0.71)	< 0.001	63.2	< 0.001	15	− 0.58 (− 0.89, − 0.28)	< 0.001	69.5	< 0.001
Cross-over	9	− 0.15 (− 0.30, − 0.01)	0.038	0.0	0.962	2	− 0.19 (− 0.42, 0.05)	0.117	0.0	0.590	7	− 0.32 (− 1.57, 0.92)	0.612	62.7	0.013	3	− 0.63 (− 1.07, − 0.19)	0.005	0.0	0.629
Country of study
Iran	11	− 0.59 (− 0.83, − 0.35)	< 0.001	31.1	0.151	7	− 0.75 (− 1.00, − 0.50)	< 0.001	0.0	0.919	9	− 1.95 (− 3.18, − 0.73)	0.002	80.4	< 0.001	8	− 0.82 (− 1.30, − 0.34)	0.001	82.1	< 0.001
Other countries	22	− 0.10 (− 0.22, 0.02)	0.116	58.8	< 0.001	5	− 0.08 (− 0.27, 0.11)	0.399	0.0	0.586	17	− 0.76 (− 1.56, 0.04)	0.062	52.8	0.006	10	− 0.48 (− 0.66, − 0.29)	< 0.001	0.0	0.523
Sponsor referred
No	25	− 0.27 (− 0.41, − 0.13)	< 0.001	60.0	< 0.001	11	− 0.42 (− 0.70, − 0.15)	0.003	54.0	0.017	20	− 1.32 (− 2.10, − 0.55)	0.001	74.0	< 0.001	13	− 0.63 (− 0.92, − 0.34)	< 0.001	70.2	< 0.001
Yes	8	− 0.01 (− 0.14, 0.13)	0.920	0.0	0.791	1	0.00 (− 0.71, 0.71)	1.000	~	~	6	− 1.01 (− 2.19, 0.17)	0.093	7.9	0.366	5	− 0.30 (− 1.04, 0.44)	0.422	37.8	0.169

FBG fasting blood glucose, FINS fasting insulin, HbA1c glycosylated hemoglobin, HOMA-IR homeostasis model assessment-insulin resistance, ITF inulin-type fructans, WMD weighted mean difference
^aP value for subgroup differences between groups
^bP value for heterogeneity within each subgroup

Back to article page

ISSN: 1479-5876

Contact us

Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
General enquiries: info@biomedcentral.com

Journal of Translational Medicine

Contact us