Cited by 100Food composition and propertiesRegulation of Appetite and ObesityNutritional Studies and Diet

Dietary Pulses, Satiety and Food Intake: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Acute Feeding Trials

Open access
Li, Siying S., Kendall, Cyril W.C., de Souza, Russell J., Jayalath, Viranda H., Cozma, Adrian I., Ha, Vanessa, Mirrahimi, Arash, Chiavaroli, Laura +6 more·2014·Obesity

Abstract

Objective To assess the effect of dietary pulses (beans, peas, chickpeas, lentils) on acute satiety and second meal intake, a systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Registry (through May 6, 2013) were searched for acute controlled trials examining the effect of dietary pulses on postprandial satiety or second meal intake compared with isocaloric controls. Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed methodological quality and risk of bias. Data were pooled by generic inverse variance random effects models and expressed as ratio of means (RoMs) for satiety and mean differences (MDs) for second meal food intake, with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Heterogeneity was assessed (Q statistic) and quantified (I(2) statistic). Protocol registration: clinicaltrials.gov identifier, NCT01605422. Results Nine trials met the eligibility criteria. Dietary pulses produced a 31% greater satiety incremental area under the curve (IAUC) (RoM = 1.31, 95% CI: 1.09 to 1.58, P = 0.004; Phet = 0.96; I(2) = 0%) without affecting second meal intake (MD = -19.94, 95% CI: -75-35, P = 0.48; Phet = 0.01; I(2) = 63%). Our data are limited by the small sample sizes, narrow participant characteristics and significant unexplained heterogeneity among the available trials. Conclusions Pooled analyses show that dietary pulses contribute to acute satiety but not second meal intake.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/oby.20782

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Li, S. S., Kendall, C. W. C., de Souza, R. J., Jayalath, V. H., Cozma, A. I., Ha, V., Mirrahimi, A., Chiavaroli, L., Augustin, L. S. A., Blanco Mejia, S., Leiter, L. A., Beyene, J., Jenkins, D. J. A., & Sievenpiper, J. L.
Affiliations
  • St. Michael's Hospital (CA)
  • Toronto 3D Knowledge Synthesis and Clinical Trials Unit, Clinical Nutrition and Risk Factor Modification Centre St. Michael's Hospital Toronto ON Canada
  • Department of Nutritional Sciences Faculty of Medicine University of Toronto Toronto ON Canada
  • University of Toronto (CA)
Corresponding author
Kendall, Cyril W.C.
Venue
Obesity
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-05-13
Volume
22
Issue
8
Pages
1773-1780
ISSN
  • 1930-7381 (ISSN-L)
  • 1930-739X
OpenAlex
W2113776794
Cited by
100
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 5
FWCI
1.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Obesity (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Canadian Insitutes of Health Reseach (119797)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Food composition and properties
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Endocrine and Autonomic Systems › Regulation of Appetite and Obesity
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Nutritional Studies and Diet
Keywords
Fabaceae, satiety, postprandial satiety, food intake regulation, beans, lentil, chickpea, pea
MeSH terms
Energy Intake, Diet, Humans, Fabaceae, Satiation, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Postprandial Period

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review