Cited by 88Lipoproteins and Cardiovascular HealthCholesterol and Lipid MetabolismNatural Products and Biological Research

Cholesterol-Lowering Efficacy of Plant Sterols/Stanols Provided in Capsule and Tablet Formats: Results of a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Amir Shaghaghi, Mandana, Abumweis, Suhad S., Jones, Peter J.H.·2013·Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics

Abstract

Plant sterols/stanols-enriched foods possess well-documented low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol-lowering effect. However, the relative efficacy of plant sterols/stanols as supplements (tablets/capsules) compared with other dietary forms still needs to be determined. Our aim was to precisely identify and quantify the LDL-cholesterol-lowering effect of plant sterols/stanols as supplements in contrast to food-based approaches. Eight eligible clinical trials published from January 1992 to April 2013 were identified from five databases. A random effect model was used to calculate weighted mean effect sizes for net differences in LDL-cholesterol concentrations. Among the included trials with the duration between 4 and 6 weeks, plant sterol/stanol dose ranged from 1.0 to 3.0 g/day administrated mainly with the main meals (2 or 3 times/day). Intake of plant sterol/stanol supplements decreased LDL-cholesterol concentrations by 12 mg/dL (0.31 mmol/L) (95% CI -0.39 to -0.23; P<0.000) compared with placebo. The test of heterogeneity was not significant (χ(2) , P=0.50, I(2)=0%). Further analysis showed no significant difference between the LDL-cholesterol-lowering action of plant sterols/stanols supplements (-12 mg/dL [-0.31 mmol/L]; 95% CI -0.39 to -0.24; P<0.0001) vs foods enriched with plant sterols/stanols (-12 mg/dL [-0.31 mmol/L]; 95% CI -0.35 to -0.27; P<0.0001). Plant sterol/stanol supplements as part of a healthy diet represent an effective means of delivering LDL-choleste…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jand.2013.07.006

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials have shown beneficial effects of plant sterols on non-HDL-C, apoB, TC, and TG.

    “Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials have shown beneficial effects of plant sterols, 38,39 viscous fibres, 37,40,41 plant proteins, 34 and nuts 33,42,43 on the established alternate lipid targets, non-HDL-C and apoB, and other blood lipids including TC and TG.”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 97 · Cited by 88

Authors
Amir Shaghaghi, M., Abumweis, S. S., & Jones, P. J. H.
Corresponding author
Jones, Peter J.H.
Venue
Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-11
Volume
113
Issue
11
Pages
1494-1503
ISSN
2212-2672 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2021321646
Cited by
88
References
97
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 7
FWCI
1.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Lipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Cholesterol and Lipid Metabolism
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Natural Products and Biological Research
Keywords
phytosterols, plant stanols, LDL cholesterol lowering, cholesterol-lowering supplements, dietary supplements, functional foods, hypercholesterolemia
MeSH terms
Anticholesteremic Agents, Diet, Humans, Cholesterol, LDL, Phytosterols, Reproducibility of Results, MEDLINE, Dietary Supplements

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