Meta-analysis of the health effects of using the glycaemic index in meal-planning
Open accessAbstract
Diabetes mellitus and CVD are some of the leading causes of mortality and morbidity. Accumulating data indicate that a diet characterised by low-glycaemic index (GI) foods may improve the management of diabetes or lipid profiles. The objective of the present meta-analysis was to critically analyse the scientific evidence that low-GI diets have beneficial effects on carbohydrate and lipid metabolism compared with high-GI diets. We searched for randomised controlled trials with a crossover or parallel design published in English between 1981 and 2003, investigating the effect of low-GI v. high-GI diets on markers for carbohydrate and lipid metabolism. Unstandardised differences in mean values were examined using the random effects model. The main outcomes were fructosamine, glycated Hb (HbA1c), HDL-cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol, total cholesterol and triacylglycerol. Literature searches identified sixteen studies that met the strict inclusion criteria. Low-GI diets significantly reduced fructosamine by -0.1 (95 % CI -0.20, 0.00) mmol/l (P=0.05), HbA1c by 0.27 (95 % CI -0.5, -0.03) % (P=0.03), total cholesterol by -0.33 (95 % CI -0.47, -0.18) mmol/l (P<0.0001) and tended to reduce LDL-cholesterol in type 2 diabetic subjects by -0.15 (95 % CI -0.31, -0.00) mmol/l (P=0.06) compared with high-GI diets. No changes were observed in HDL-cholesterol and triacylglycerol concentrations. No substantial heterogeneity was detected, suggesting that the effects of low-GI diets in these studies were uniform. Results of the present meta-analysis support the use of the GI as a scientifically based tool to enable selection of carbohydrate-containing foods to reduce total cholesterol and to improve overall metabolic control of diabetes.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
The meta-analysis by Opperman et al. (2004) supports the value of low-GI foods for lowering total cholesterol and improving metabolic control of diabetes.
“On the other hand, the meta-analysis by Opperman et al. (2004) supports the value of low-GI foods to lower total cholesterol and improve metabolic control of diabetes.”
From Glycaemic index methodology (2005) · cites this paper as Opperman et al. (2004)
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 84 · Cited by 192
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- Augustin LS, Franceschi S, Jenkins DJA, Kendall CWC & La Vecchia C (2002) Glycemic index and chronic disease: a review. Eur J Clin Nutr 56, 1049-1071.
- Clarke M & Oxman AD (2001) Analysing and presenting the results. In Cochrane Reviewers Handbook 4.1.4 (updated October 2001), section 8, pp. 59 -78. The Cochrane Library, Oxford: Update Software.
- Kumar P & Clark M (1998) Clinical Medicine. London: W.B. Saunders.
- Timar O, Sestier F & Levy E (2000) Metabolic syndrome X: a review. Can J Cardiol 16, 779-789.
- Vorster HH, Oosthuizen W, Jerling JC, Veldman FJ & Burger HM (1997) The Nutritional Status of South Africans. A Review of the Literature from 1975 -1996. Part 1. Durban: Health Systems Trust.
- Vorster HH, Venter CS, Thompson RL & Margetts BM (2003) Evidence-based nutrition -using a meta-analysis to review the literature. S Afr J Clin Nutr 16, 43 -48.
- Authors
- Opperman, A. M., Venter, C. S., Oosthuizen, W., Thompson, R. L., & Vorster, H. H.
- Affiliations
- North-West University (ZA)
- University of Southampton (GB)
- ORCID
- Thompson, Rachel L.
- Venue
- British Journal of Nutrition
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2004-09
- Volume
- 92
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 367-381
- ISSN
- 0007-1145 (ISSN-L)
- 1475-2662
- OpenAlex
- W2171224737
- Cited by
- 192
- References
- 84
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 9
- FWCI
- 1.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- British Journal Of Nutrition (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Food composition and properties
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Diet and metabolism studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Nutritional Studies and Diet
- Keywords
- glycemic index, low glycemic index diet, meal planning, type 2 diabetes, fructosamine, lipid metabolism, total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, triglycerides, carbohydrate metabolism, cardiovascular disease
- MeSH terms
- Blood Glucose, Cholesterol, Cooking, Diet, Dietary Carbohydrates, Dietary Fats, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Triglycerides, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Fructosamine, Glycemic Index, Lipid Metabolism
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