Effect of Replacing Animal Protein with Plant Protein on Glycemic Control in Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Open accessAbstract
Previous research on the effect of replacing sources of animal protein with plant protein on glycemic control has been inconsistent. We therefore conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the effect of this replacement on glycemic control in individuals with diabetes. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases through 26 August 2015. We included RCTs ≥ 3-weeks comparing the effect of replacing animal with plant protein on HbA1c, fasting glucose (FG), and fasting insulin (FI). Two independent reviewers extracted relevant data, assessed study quality and risk of bias. Data were pooled by the generic inverse variance method and expressed as mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was assessed (Cochran Q-statistic) and quantified (I2-statistic). Thirteen RCTs (n = 280) met the eligibility criteria. Diets emphasizing a replacement of animal with plant protein at a median level of ~35% of total protein per day significantly lowered HbA1c (MD = −0.15%; 95%-CI: −0.26, −0.05%), FG (MD = −0.53 mmol/L; 95%-CI: −0.92, −0.13 mmol/L) and FI (MD = −10.09 pmol/L; 95%-CI: −17.31, −2.86 pmol/L) compared with control arms. Overall, the results indicate that replacing sources of animal with plant protein leads to modest improvements in glycemic control in individuals with diabetes. Owing to uncertainties in our analyses there is a need for larger, longer, higher quality trials. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT02037321.
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?
In a 2015 meta-analysis of randomized control trials that replaced animal protein sources with plant protein for at least 35% of total dietary protein intake over a median study length of eight weeks, there were significant but modest improvements in HbA1c, fasting glucose, and fasting insulin levels in individuals with diabetes.
“In a 2015 meta-analysis of randomized control trials that replaced animal protein sources with plant protein for at least 35% of total dietary protein intake over a median study length of eight weeks, the authors reported significant, but modest, improvements in HbA1c, fasting glucose, and fasting insulin levels in individuals with diabetes [82].”
From Plant Proteins: Assessing Their Nutritional Quality and Effects on Health and Physical Function (2020) · cites this paper as [82]
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 77 · Cited by 130
- Authors
- Viguiliouk, E., Stewart, S., Jayalath, V., Ng, A., Mirrahimi, A., De Souza, R., Hanley, A., Bazinet, R., Blanco Mejia, S., Leiter, L., Josse, R., Kendall, C., Jenkins, D., & Sievenpiper, J.
- Affiliations
- St. Michael's Hospital (CA)
- Toronto 3D Knowledge Synthesis and Clinical Trials Unit, Clinical Nutrition and Risk Factor Modification Center, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, ON M5C 2T2, Canada
- Mount Sinai Hospital (CA)
- University of Toronto (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Sievenpiper, John
- ORCID
- Venue
- Nutrients
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2015-12-01
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 9804-9824
- ISSN
- 2072-6643 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4690061
- OpenAlex
- W2187172523
- Cited by
- 130
- References
- 77
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 2
- FWCI
- 0.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- dx.doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Nutrients (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- TSpace (University of Toronto) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- U.S. Department of Agriculture
- Abbott Laboratories
- PepsiCo
- World Health Organization
- General Mills
- Coca-Cola Foundation
- Mead Johnson Nutrition
- California Strawberry Commission
- Danone
- Almond Board of California
- Saskatchewan Pulse Growers
- Canola Council of Canada
- Loblaw Companies Limited
- Government of Canada
- Canadian Foundation for Dietetic Research
- Physicians' Services Incorporated Foundation
- European Foundation for the Study of Diabetes
- Alpro Foundation
- International Nut and Dried Fruit Council
- Canadian Institutes of Health Research
- Banting and Best Diabetes Centre, University of Toronto
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Nutritional Studies and Diet
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
- Keywords
- plant proteins, animal protein, protein source replacement, glycemic control, diabetes mellitus, HbA1c, fasting blood glucose, fasting insulin, dietary protein
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Blood Glucose, Diabetes Mellitus, Dietary Proteins, Humans, Meat, Plant Proteins, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
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
