Cited by 149Fatty Acid Research and HealthNutritional Studies and DietDiet and metabolism studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 41 of the 41 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 29 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Effects of Monounsaturated Fatty Acids on Glycaemic Control in Patients with Abnormal Glucose Metabolism: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Schwingshackl, L., Strasser, B., Hoffmann, G.·2011·Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism

Abstract

Background/Aims: In 2008, the American Diabetes Association recommended low-carbohydrate or low-fat diets for weight management in patients with established type 2 diabetes (T2D), while the amount of monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFA) was not specified. This systematic review focused on the effects of diets high in MUFA versus diets low in MUFA on important risk factors of T2D (i.e. plasma glucose, insulin, homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance and glycosylated haemoglobin, HbA1c). Methods: Nine randomized controlled intervention trials with a total of 1,547 participants and a running time of at least 6 months, comparing diets high versus low in MUFA among adults with abnormal glucose metabolism (T2D, impaired glucose tolerance and insulin resistant), being overweight or obese, have been included in the meta-analysis. We performed a random effects meta-analysis to determine the weighted mean differences with 95% confidence intervals using the software package Review Manager 5.0.25 of the Cochrane Collaboration. Results: Significant differences in HbA1c were found (weighted mean difference –0.21%, 95% CI –0.40 to –0.02; p = 0.03), favouring the high MUFA groups. In contrast, fasting plasma glucose, fasting plasma insulin as well as the homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance were not affected by the amounts of MUFA in the dietary protocols. Conclusions: In summary, this systematic review found that high MUFA diets appear to be effective in reducing HbA1c, and therefore, should be recommended in the dietary regimes of T2D.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This systematic review and meta-analysis of 9 long-term RCTs in people with abnormal glucose metabolism found that high-MUFA diets (≥12% of total energy) significantly lowered HbA1c compared with low-MUFA diets. Fasting plasma glucose, fasting insulin, and HOMA-IR did not differ significantly between high- and low-MUFA diets.

Key findings

  • HbA1c was significantly reduced with high- vs low-MUFA diets: WMD −0.21% (95% CI −0.40 to −0.02; p = 0.03; 5 studies, 667 participants; I² = 15%). The high-MUFA vs low-fat subgroup also showed a significant reduction: WMD −0.28% (95% CI −0.52 to −0.03; p = 0.03).
  • Fasting plasma glucose did not differ significantly: WMD −3.02 mg/dl (95% CI −6.66 to 0.63; p = 0.11; 9 studies, 1,545 participants; I² = 81%).
  • Fasting plasma insulin did not differ significantly: WMD −0.05 (95% CI −1.60 to 1.49; p = 0.94; 9 studies, 1,547 participants; I² = 84%).
  • HOMA-IR did not differ significantly: WMD −0.26 (95% CI −0.75 to 0.24; p = 0.31; 6 studies, 1,355 participants; I² = 86%).

Methods

  • Systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs in participants with abnormal glucose metabolism (IGT, T2D, IR), BMI ≥25, intervention/follow-up ≥6 months, and nutritional counselling by a dietician. Searches covered Medline (1966–May 2011), Embase (1980–May 2011), and the Cochrane Trial Register (until May 2011).
  • Included 9 RCTs with 1,547 participants; intervention durations ranged from 6 months to 4 years. High-MUFA diets were defined as ≥12% of total energy content (TEC); low-MUFA diets as ≤12% TEC, including low-fat, low/high glycaemic index, high-protein, and control diets.
  • Random-effects meta-analysis using Review Manager 5.0.25; outcomes were fasting plasma glucose, fasting plasma insulin, HOMA-IR, and HbA1c. Results reported as weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% CIs; heterogeneity assessed with Q and I²; funnel plots assessed publication bias; Jadad score assessed study quality.

Limitations

  • Stated: unpublished data were not considered; included publications varied in diet types, MUFA definitions, study populations, intervention time, and follow-up protocols; drug regimens were not identical across participants; mixed IGT, IR, and T2D populations were included, and effects might be especially strong in T2D. The funnel plot for HbA1c showed little asymmetry/small potential publication bias.
  • Evident: heterogeneity was substantial for fasting plasma glucose, fasting plasma insulin, and HOMA-IR (I² >80%), so those pooled null estimates should be interpreted cautiously; the significant HbA1c finding rests on 5 studies and 667 participants.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1159/000331214

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 29 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 18 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 12
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 17
26 of 26
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Imputing the baseline standard deviation for one trial is a valid procedure because baseline and post-intervention standard deviations were similar in the other included trials.

    “We assumed that this is a valid procedure, since the baseline and post-intervention SD were found to be similar within the other trials included in the metaanalysis.”
1 of 1

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Table describes change scores, but methods specify endpoint values

    Major

    Table 2 says its pooled effects are changes from baseline, whereas the methods say the meta-analysis compared post-intervention values. These are different outcome measures.

  • Esposito citation points to a different author

    Minor

    The discussion identifies reference [18] as an Esposito study, but entry 18 in the reference list is by Boulé and colleagues.

  • Fasting insulin is reported in incompatible units

    Minor

    The assessed-outcomes section specifies U/ml for fasting plasma insulin, but the fasting-insulin result reports its mean difference in mg/dl.

3 of 3

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 41 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. 10.1007%2fs00125-003-1190-9 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–149 of 149

Metadata

Authors
Schwingshackl, L., Strasser, B., & Hoffmann, G.
Affiliations
UMIT TIROL - Private University for Health Sciences and Health Technology (AT)
Venue
Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism
Publisher
S. Karger AG
Published
2011
Volume
58
Issue
4
Pages
290-296
ISSN
  • 0250-6807 (ISSN-L)
  • 1421-9697
OpenAlex
W1973429542
Cited by
147
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 6
FWCI
1.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Fatty Acid Research and Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Nutritional Studies and Diet
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology (medical) › Diet and metabolism studies
Keywords
monounsaturated fatty acids, glycemic control, type 2 diabetes, impaired glucose tolerance, insulin resistance, HbA1c, fasting blood glucose, fasting insulin, dietary fat composition, abnormal glucose metabolism, obesity
MeSH terms
Adult, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Fatty Acids, Monounsaturated, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Hyperglycemia, Hypoglycemia, Insulin Resistance, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Glucose Intolerance, Overweight

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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