13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Effects of Folic Acid Supplementation on Oxidative Stress Markers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          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

          (1) Background: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the effects of folic acid supplementation on oxidative stress markers. (2) Methods: Online database including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane were searched up to January 2021, to retrieve randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which examined the effect of folic acid supplementation on markers of oxidative stress. Meta-analyses were carried out using a random-effects model. I 2 index was used to evaluate the heterogeneity of RCTs. (3) Results: Among the initial 2322 studies that were identified from electronic databases search, 13 studies involving 1013 participants were eligible. Pooled effect size from 13 studies indicated that folic acid supplementation elicits a significant rise in serum concentrations of glutathione (GSH) (WMD: 219.01 umol/L, 95% CI 59.30 to 378.71, p = 0.007) and total antioxidant capacity (TAC) (WMD: 91.70 umol/L, 95% CI 40.52 to 142.88, p < 0.001) but has no effect on serum concentrations of nitric oxide (NO) (WMD: 2.61 umol/L, 95% CI −3.48 to 8.72, p = 0.400). In addition, folic acid supplementation significantly reduced serum concentrations of malondialdehyde (MDA) (WMD: −0.13 umol/L, 95% CI −0.24 to −0.02, p = 0.020). (4) Conclusions: This meta-analysis study suggests that folic acid supplementation may significantly improve markers within the antioxidative defense system by increasing serum concentrations of GSH and TAC and decreasing serum concentrations of MDA.

          Related collections

          Most cited references60

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

          Flaws in the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of randomised trials can cause the effect of an intervention to be underestimated or overestimated. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias aims to make the process clearer and more accurate
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis.

            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.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement

              David Moher and colleagues introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Academic Editor
                Journal
                Antioxidants (Basel)
                Antioxidants (Basel)
                antioxidants
                Antioxidants
                MDPI
                2076-3921
                28 May 2021
                June 2021
                : 10
                : 6
                : 871
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Cancer Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran 14167-53955, Iran; omid.asbaghi@ 123456gmail.com
                [2 ]Nutrition and Metabolic Disease Research Center, Department of Nutrition, Faculty of Paramedicine, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz 61357-15794, Iran; matina_844@ 123456yahoo.com
                [3 ]Nutrition and Metabolic Diseases Research Center, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz 61357-15794, Iran; damoon_ashtary@ 123456yahoo.com
                [4 ]Department of Exercise Physiology, University of Isfahan, Isfahan 81746-73441, Iran; will.fivb@ 123456yahoo.com
                [5 ]Department of Community Nutrition, School of Nutrition and Food Science, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan 81746-73461, Iran; m.rezaei81@ 123456yahoo.com
                [6 ]Student Research Committee, Lorestan University of Medical Sciences, Khorramabad 68138-33946, Iran; nazarianbehzad969@ 123456yahoo.com
                [7 ]Department of Health and Human Performance, Marymount University, Arlington, VA 22207, USA; michael.nordvall@ 123456marymount.edu (M.N.); awong@ 123456marymount.edu (A.W.)
                [8 ]CNRS, LaPSCo, Physiological and Psychosocial Stress, CHU Clermont-Ferrand, University Hospital of Clermont-Ferrand, Preventive and Occupational Medicine, WittyFit, Université Clermont Auvergne, F-63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France; fred_dutheil@ 123456yahoo.fr
                [9 ]Faculty of Sport Sciences, Waseda University, 2-579-15 Mikajima, Tokorozawa 359-1192, Japan
                Author notes
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6572-5809
                Article
                antioxidants-10-00871
                10.3390/antiox10060871
                8230016
                34071500
                cf5cc3ae-54b0-4e6d-b4ed-2837f450f070
                © 2021 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 30 April 2021
                : 26 May 2021
                Categories
                Review

                folic acid,supplementation,folate,oxidative stress,meta-analysis,systematic review

                Comments

                Comment on this article