| Literature DB >> 35684063 |
Marva Sweeney1, Gracie Burns1, Nora Sturgeon2, Kim Mears3, Kim Stote4, Cynthia Blanton5.
Abstract
Berry consumption has beneficial effects on blood pressure. Intestinal microbiota transform berry phytochemicals into more bioactive forms. Thus, we performed a systematic review of randomized clinical trials to determine whether berry polyphenols in foods, extracts or supplements have effects on both the profile of gut microbiota and systolic and diastolic blood pressure in humans. PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and CAB Abstracts (EBSCOhost) were searched for randomized clinical trials in humans published from 1 January 2011 to 29 October 2021. Search results were imported into Covidence for screening and data extraction by two blinded reviewers, who also performed bias assessment independently. The literature search identified 216 publications; after duplicates were removed, 168 publications were screened with 12 full-text publications assessed for eligibility. Ultimately three randomized clinical trials in humans met the eligibility criteria. One randomized clinical trial showed a low risk of bias while the other two randomized clinical trials included low, high or unclear risk of bias. Together the randomized clinical trials showed that berry consumption (Aronia berry, strawberries, raspberries, cloudberries and bilberries) for 8-12 weeks had no significant effect on both blood pressure and the gut microbiota. More randomized clinical trials are needed to determine the effects of berry consumption on the profile of gut microbiota and blood pressure in humans.Entities:
Keywords: berries; blood pressure; intestinal microbiota; polyphenols; randomized controlled trials
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35684063 PMCID: PMC9182664 DOI: 10.3390/nu14112263
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 6.706
Effects of dietary berry polyphenols on blood pressure and the intestinal microbiota.
| Category | Data | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
| Title | Lead author contact details | |
| Year of publication | Study region | ||
| Journal name | IRB/REB approval | ||
| Registered clinical trial number | |||
|
| Blinding | Population description | |
|
| Control | Treatment 1 | Treatment 2 |
|
| Type of Biologicals Samples | ||
|
| Outcome—Time Point 1 | Gut microflora | Other comments |
IRB/REB, Institutional Review Board/Research Ethics Board; BP, blood pressure; and BMI, body mass index.
Figure 1PRISMA diagram: flow of studies through the review. Abbreviation: PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.
Effects of dietary berry polyphenols on blood pressure and the intestinal microbiota.
| Istas, 2019 [ | Puupponen-Pimiä, 2013 [ | Xu, 2015 [ | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 66 (66/0) | 32 (13/19) | 142 (92/50) | |
|
| 23 ± 4 years | 51 ± 7 years | 66 ± 4 years | |
|
| Healthy | Metabolic syndrome | Hypertension | |
|
| 300 g fresh berries (100 g strawberry purée, 100 g frozen raspberries, 100 g frozen cloudberries) substituting other sources of carbohydrates normally consumed | Fruit drink (10 g fresh bilberries fermented with | ||
|
| Control capsules, matched in appearance to both intervention capsules, contains maltodextrin and no polyphenols | Usual diet with berry restriction | Placebo drink plus placebo probiotic powder (without bilberries or | |
|
| Parallel | Parallel | Parallel | |
|
| 12 week intervention | 16 week (4 week run in with berry restriction, 8 week intervention, 4 week recovery period) | 14 week (2 week run in period, 12 week intervention) | |
|
| Change in blood pressure at 12 weeks (mmHg) | Change in blood pressure at 12 weeks (mmHg) | Change in blood pressure at 12 weeks (mmHg) | |
|
| NC in fecal microbiota | NC in fecal microbiota | NC in oral or fecal microbiota diversity | |
Arrows indicate reported changes ↑, increased; NC, no statistically significant changes between baseline and end of intervention duration; PSBP, peripheral systolic blood pressure; PDBP, peripheral diastolic blood pressure; CSBP, central systolic blood pressure; CDBP, central diastolic blood pressure; SBP, systolic blood pressure; DBP, diastolic blood pressure; M/F: Male/Female; * p < 0.05.
Cochrane assessment of risk of bias.
| Author, Year | Sequence | Allocation Concealment 2 | Blinding of Participant and Personnel 3 | Blinding of Outcome Assessor 4 | Incomplete Outcome Data 5 | Selective Outcome Reporting 6 | Other Sources of Bias 7 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Istas, 2019 [ | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk |
| Puupponen-Pimiä, 2013 [ | Low risk | Unclear | High Risk | Unclear | Low risk | Low risk | Unclear |
| Xu, 2015 [ | Low risk | Low risk | High Risk | Unclear | Low risk | High risk | Unclear |
1 Describe the method used to generate the allocation sequence in sufficient detail to allow an assessment of whether it should produce comparable groups. 2 Describe the method used to conceal the allocation sequence in sufficient detail to determine whether intervention allocations could have been foreseen in advance of, or during, enrollment. 3 Describe all measures used, if any, to blind study participants and personnel from knowledge of which intervention a participant received. Provide any information relating to whether the intended blinding was effective. 4 Describe all measures used, if any, to blind outcome assessors from knowledge of which intervention a participant received. Provide any information relating to whether the intended blinding was effective. 5 Describe the completeness of outcome data for each main outcome, including attrition and exclusions from the analysis. State whether attrition and exclusions were reported, the numbers in each intervention group (compared with total randomized participants), reasons for attrition/exclusions where reported, and any re-inclusions in analyses performed by the review authors. 6 State how the possibility of selective outcome reporting was examined by the review authors, and what was found. 7 State any important concerns about bias not addressed in the other domains in the tool. If particular questions/entries were pre-specified in the review’s protocol, responses should be provided for each question/entry.