Evidence mapPaperPMID 28222178Full record

Trial reportPloS one2017

Effect of meal composition on postprandial lipid concentrations and lipoprotein particle numbers: A randomized cross-over study.

Meena Shah, Manall Jaffery, Beverley Adams-Huet, Brian Franklin, Jonathan Oliver, Joel Mitchell

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Meena ShahDepartment of Kinesiology, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, Texas, United States of America.
Manall JafferyDepartment of Kinesiology, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, Texas, United States of America.
Beverley Adams-HuetDepartment of Clinical Sciences, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, Dallas, Texas, United States of America.
Brian FranklinDepartment of Kinesiology, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, Texas, United States of America.
Jonathan OliverDepartment of Kinesiology, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, Texas, United States of America.
Joel MitchellDepartment of Kinesiology, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, Texas, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIt is unclear how high-protein (HP) and high-monounsaturated fat (HMF) meals affect postprandial blood lipids and lipoprotein particle numbers (LPN). PURPOSE: To compare a HP versus a HMF meal on postprandial lipid and LPN responses.

methodsTwenty-four participants (age: 36.3±15.0 years; body mass index: 23.6±2.0 kg/m2; 45.8% female) were fed a HP (31.9% energy from protein) and a HMF (35.2% fat and 20.7% monounsaturated fat) meal in a randomized cross-over trial design. Energy and carbohydrate content were the same across meals. Blood samples were drawn in the fasting state and 3 hour postprandial state, and assessed for lipids and LPN.

resultsRepeated measures analysis showed a significant (p<0.05) treatment by time interaction effect for triglycerides (TG), the primary variable, total high-density lipoprotein particles (T-HDLP) and T-HDLP minus large-buoyant high-density lipoprotein 2b (T-HDLP-LB-HDL2b). HP versus HMF condition led to significantly lower TG at 120 (geometric mean: 90.1 (95% confidence interval (CI): 76.4-106.3) vs. 146.5 (124.2-172.9) mg/dL) and 180 (101.4 (83.1-123.8) vs. 148.7 (121.9-181.4) mg/dL) min and higher T-HDLP at 120 (mean difference: 297.3 (95% CI: 48.6-545.9) nmol/L) and 180 (291.6 (15.8-567.5) nmol/L) min. The difference in T-HDLP by condition was due to the significantly higher small-dense HDLP (T-HDLP-LB-HDL2b) during HP versus HMF condition at 120 (mean difference: 452.6 (95% CI: 177.4-727.9) nmol/L) and 180 (496.8 (263.1-730.6) nmol/L) min. Area under the curve analysis showed that HP versus HMF condition led to significantly lower TG, non-HDLP, and very-low-density lipoprotein particles (VLDLP) responses but significantly less favorable responses in LB-HDL2b particles, T-HDLP-LB-HDL2b, and LB-HDL2b/T-HDLP ratio.

conclusionThe HP meal led to lower TG, non-HDLP, and VLDLP but less favorable LB-HDL2b, small-dense HDLP, and LB-HDL2b/T-HDLP ratio responses versus a HMF meal. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings over multiple meals.

Indexed as

MealsAdolescentAdultAnthropometryBody CompositionCross-Over StudiesDietary FatsDietary ProteinsEnergy IntakeFastingFatty Acids, MonounsaturatedFemaleHumansLipidsLipoproteinsMaleDietary FatsDietary ProteinsFatty Acids, MonounsaturatedLipidsLipoproteins

Identifiers

PMID28222178
PMCPMC5319704

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.