Olive leaf extract effect on cardiometabolic risk factors: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Context

Olive leaf extract (OLE) is rich in phenolic compounds, which are known for their health benefits. Cardiovascular diseases, primarily coronary heart disease and stroke, are leading causes of mortality globally.

Objective

This systematic review aimed to assess the impact of OLE on cardiometabolic risk factors in adults. The selection of studies was based on intervention and outcomes, using relevant search descriptors.

Data Sources

The databases PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science were systematically searched for pertinent studies published up to August 2021.

Data Extraction

Only randomized clinical trials, either cross-over or parallel, involving adult individuals aged ≥18 years, were considered. Additionally, trials that had a comparative or placebo group and used pure OLEs for oral treatment were included.

Data Analysis

Twelve randomized clinical trials (RCTs) met the inclusion criteria. These trials had follow-up periods ranging from 2 days to 12 weeks and involved 703 patients aged 18 years–79 years. The outcomes demonstrated a positive correlation between the intervention group and glucose metabolism (4 RCTs), blood pressure (2 RCTs), lipid profile (2 RCTs), and inflammatory markers (2 RCTs). The RoB2 tool and the GRADE system were used to evaluate the risk of bias and the quality of evidence in the studies.

Conclusions

In the meta-analysis, fasting glycemia, as evaluated in studies using a low dose of OLE, showed a significant result favoring the control group. To obtain more consistent results, further clinical studies in humans, using similar methodologies, are required.

Systematic Review Registration

PROSPERO registration no. CRD42020200877.

Related collections

Most cited references 66

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis.

Julian P T Higgins, Simon G Thompson (2002)

The extent of heterogeneity in a meta-analysis partly determines the difficulty in drawing overall conclusions. This extent may be measured by estimating a between-study variance, but interpretation is then specific to a particular treatment effect metric. A test for the existence of heterogeneity exists, but depends on the number of studies in the meta-analysis. We develop measures of the impact of heterogeneity on a meta-analysis, from mathematical criteria, that are independent of the number of studies and the treatment effect metric. We derive and propose three suitable statistics: H is the square root of the chi2 heterogeneity statistic divided by its degrees of freedom; R is the ratio of the standard error of the underlying mean from a random effects meta-analysis to the standard error of a fixed effect meta-analytic estimate, and I2 is a transformation of (H) that describes the proportion of total variation in study estimates that is due to heterogeneity. We discuss interpretation, interval estimates and other properties of these measures and examine them in five example data sets showing different amounts of heterogeneity. We conclude that H and I2, which can usually be calculated for published meta-analyses, are particularly useful summaries of the impact of heterogeneity. One or both should be presented in published meta-analyses in preference to the test for heterogeneity. Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

0 comments Cited 5766 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration

Alessandro Liberati, Douglas G. Altman, Jennifer Tetzlaff … (2010)

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarise evidence relating to efficacy and safety of healthcare interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, are not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (quality of reporting of meta-analysis) statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realising these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this explanation and elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA statement, this document, and the associated website (www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

0 comments Cited 3566 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics—2021 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association

Salim S. Virani, Alvaro Alonso, Hugo Aparicio … (2021)

The American Heart Association, in conjunction with the National Institutes of Health, annually reports the most up-to-date statistics related to heart disease, stroke, and cardiovascular risk factors, including core health behaviors (smoking, physical activity, diet, and weight) and health factors (cholesterol, blood pressure, and glucose control) that contribute to cardiovascular health. The Statistical Update presents the latest data on a range of major clinical heart and circulatory disease conditions (including stroke, congenital heart disease, rhythm disorders, subclinical atherosclerosis, coronary heart disease, heart failure, valvular disease, venous disease, and peripheral artery disease) and the associated outcomes (including quality of care, procedures, and economic costs). The American Heart Association, through its Statistics Committee, continuously monitors and evaluates sources of data on heart disease and stroke in the United States to provide the most current information available in the annual Statistical Update. The 2021 Statistical Update is the product of a full year’s worth of effort by dedicated volunteer clinicians and scientists, committed government professionals, and American Heart Association staff members. This year’s edition includes data on the monitoring and benefits of cardiovascular health in the population, an enhanced focus on social determinants of health, adverse pregnancy outcomes, vascular contributions to brain health, the global burden of cardiovascular disease, and further evidence-based approaches to changing behaviors related to cardiovascular disease. Each of the 27 chapters in the Statistical Update focuses on a different topic related to heart disease and stroke statistics. The Statistical Update represents a critical resource for the lay public, policy makers, media professionals, clinicians, health care administrators, researchers, health advocates, and others seeking the best available data on these factors and conditions.