Lukas Schwingshackl1, Marc Krause2, Christine Schmucker2, Georg Hoffmann3, Gerta Rücker4, Joerg J Meerpohl2. 1. Institute for Evidence in Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany. Electronic address: schwingshackl@ifem.uni-freiburg.de. 2. Institute for Evidence in Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany. 3. Department of Nutritional Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Vienna, Austria. 4. Institute of Medical Biometry and Statistics, Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM: This network meta-analysis (NMA) compares the effects of different types of olive oil (OO) on cardiovascular risk factors. METHODS AND RESULTS: Literature search was conducted on three electronic databases (Medline, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central). INCLUSION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (≥3 weeks duration of intervention) comparing at least two of the following types of OO: refined OO (ROO), mixed OO (MOO), low phenolic (extra) virgin OO (LP(E)VOO), and high phenolic (extra) virgin OO (HP(E)VOO). Random-effects NMA was performed for seven outcomes; and surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was estimated, using an analytical approach (P-score). Thirteen RCTs (16 reports) with 611 mainly healthy participants (mean age: 26-70 years) were identified. No differences for total cholesterol, HDL-cholesterol, triacylglycerols, and diastolic blood pressure were observed comparing ROO, MOO, LP(E)VOO and HP(E)VOO. HP(E)VOO slightly reduce LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C) compared to LP(E)VOO (mean difference [MD]: -0.14 mmol/L, 95%-CI: -0.28, -0.01). Both, HP(E)VOO and LP(E)VOO reduces SBP compared to ROO (range of MD: -2.99 to -2.87 mmHg), and HP(E)VOO may improve oxidized LDL-cholesterol (oxLDL-C) compared to ROO (standardized MD: -0.68, 95%-CI: -1.31, -0.04). In secondary analyses, EVOO may reduce oxLDL-C compared to ROO, and a dose-response relationship between higher intakes of phenolic compounds from OO and lower SBP and oxLDL-C values was detected. HP(E)VOO was ranked as best treatment for LDL-C (P-score: 0.83), oxLDL-C (0.88), and SBP (0.75). CONCLUSIONS: HP(E)VOO may improve some cardiovascular risk factors, however, public health implications are limited by overall low or moderate certainty of evidence.
BACKGROUND AND AIM: This network meta-analysis (NMA) compares the effects of different types of olive oil (OO) on cardiovascular risk factors. METHODS AND RESULTS: Literature search was conducted on three electronic databases (Medline, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central). INCLUSION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (≥3 weeks duration of intervention) comparing at least two of the following types of OO: refined OO (ROO), mixed OO (MOO), low phenolic (extra) virgin OO (LP(E)VOO), and high phenolic (extra) virgin OO (HP(E)VOO). Random-effects NMA was performed for seven outcomes; and surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was estimated, using an analytical approach (P-score). Thirteen RCTs (16 reports) with 611 mainly healthy participants (mean age: 26-70 years) were identified. No differences for total cholesterol, HDL-cholesterol, triacylglycerols, and diastolic blood pressure were observed comparing ROO, MOO, LP(E)VOO and HP(E)VOO. HP(E)VOO slightly reduce LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C) compared to LP(E)VOO (mean difference [MD]: -0.14 mmol/L, 95%-CI: -0.28, -0.01). Both, HP(E)VOO and LP(E)VOO reduces SBP compared to ROO (range of MD: -2.99 to -2.87 mmHg), and HP(E)VOO may improve oxidized LDL-cholesterol (oxLDL-C) compared to ROO (standardized MD: -0.68, 95%-CI: -1.31, -0.04). In secondary analyses, EVOO may reduce oxLDL-C compared to ROO, and a dose-response relationship between higher intakes of phenolic compounds from OO and lower SBP and oxLDL-C values was detected. HP(E)VOO was ranked as best treatment for LDL-C (P-score: 0.83), oxLDL-C (0.88), and SBP (0.75). CONCLUSIONS:HP(E)VOO may improve some cardiovascular risk factors, however, public health implications are limited by overall low or moderate certainty of evidence.
Authors: Katerina Sarapis; Elena S George; Wolfgang Marx; Hannah L Mayr; Jane Willcox; Tammy Esmaili; Katie L Powell; Oladayo S Folasire; Anna E Lohning; Manohar Garg; Colleen J Thomas; Catherine Itsiopoulos; George Moschonis Journal: Eur J Nutr Date: 2021-10-30 Impact factor: 5.614
Authors: Carolina Donat-Vargas; Esther Lopez-Garcia; José R Banegas; Miguel Á Martínez-González; Fernando Rodríguez-Artalejo; Pilar Guallar-Castillón Journal: Eur J Clin Nutr Date: 2022-10-14 Impact factor: 4.884
Authors: José J Gaforio; Francesco Visioli; Catalina Alarcón-de-la-Lastra; Olga Castañer; Miguel Delgado-Rodríguez; Monserrat Fitó; Antonio F Hernández; Jesús R Huertas; Miguel A Martínez-González; Javier A Menendez; Jesús de la Osada; Angeliki Papadaki; Tesifón Parrón; Jorge E Pereira; María A Rosillo; Cristina Sánchez-Quesada; Lukas Schwingshackl; Estefanía Toledo; Aristidis M Tsatsakis Journal: Nutrients Date: 2019-09-01 Impact factor: 5.717
Authors: Maravillas Sánchez Macarro; Juan Pablo Martínez Rodríguez; Enrique Bernal Morell; Silvia Pérez-Piñero; Desirée Victoria-Montesinos; Ana María García-Muñoz; Fernando Cánovas García; Julián Castillo Sánchez; Francisco Javier López-Román Journal: Nutrients Date: 2020-05-19 Impact factor: 5.717