Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34562081›Full record

Trial reportThe Journal of nutrition2022

Peanuts or an Isocaloric Lower Fat, Higher Carbohydrate Nighttime Snack Have Similar Effects on Fasting Glucose in Adults with Elevated Fasting Glucose Concentrations: a 6-Week Randomized Crossover Trial.

Philip A Sapp, Penny M Kris-Etherton, Kristina S Petersen

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The Journal of nutrition, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03654651 (The Role of the Microbiome in Blood Glucose Regulation in Response to Peanut Consumption), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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.

NCT03654651 phase2completednot on this map

The Role of the Microbiome in Blood Glucose Regulation in Response to Peanut Consumption

TypeinterventionalSponsorPenn State UniversityRan2018 to 2019Enrolled51ConditionsType2 Diabetes, Cardiovascular DiseasesArmsPeanut, High carbohydrate snack
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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

3 authors.

Philip A SappDepartment of Nutritional Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1431-0619
Penny M Kris-EthertonDepartment of Nutritional Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA.
Kristina S PetersenDepartment of Nutritional Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3914-0353

Funding

Penn State Clinical and Translational Science InstituteUL1TR002014 · NCATS · PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV HERSHEY MED CTR · PI KRASCHNEWSKI, JENNIFER L. · 2016 to 2025
$33.7M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002014
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe glycemic effects of peanuts are not well studied and no trials have been conducted in adults with elevated fasting plasma glucose (FPG). Furthermore, intake of peanuts as a nighttime snack, an eating occasion affecting FPG, has not been examined.

objectivesThe aim was to determine the effect of consuming 28 g/d of peanuts as a nighttime snack for 6 wk on glycemic control and cardiovascular disease risk factors, compared with an isocaloric lower fat, higher carbohydrate (LFHC) snack (whole grain crackers and low-fat cheese), in adults with elevated FPG.

methodsIn a randomized crossover trial, 50 adults (FPG 100 ± 8 mg/dL) consumed dry roasted, unsalted peanuts [164 kcal; 11% energy (E) carbohydrate, 17% E protein, and 73% E fat] or a LFHC snack (164 kcal; 54% E carbohydrate, 17% E protein, and 33% E fat) in the evening (after dinner and before bedtime) for 6 wk with a 4-wk washout period. Primary (FPG) and secondary end points [Healthy Eating Index-2015 (HEI-2015), weight, insulin, fructosamine, lipids/lipoproteins, central and peripheral blood pressure, and pulse wave velocity] were evaluated at the beginning and end of each condition. Linear mixed models were used for data analysis.

resultsFPG was not different between the peanut and LFHC conditions (end point mean difference: -0.6 mg/dL; 95% CI: -2.7, 1.6; P = 0.67). There were no between-condition effects for secondary cardiometabolic endpoints. The HEI-2015 score was not different between the conditions (3.6 points; P = 0.19), although the seafood/plant protein (2.0 points; P < 0.01) and added sugar (0.8 points; P = 0.04) components were improved following peanut intake. The whole grain component was lower with peanuts compared with LFHC (-2.6 points; P < 0.01).

conclusionsIn adults with elevated FPG, peanuts as a nighttime snack (28 g/d) did not affect FPG compared with an isocaloric LFHC snack after 6 wk.This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT03654651.

Indexed as

FastingSnacksAdultArachisBlood GlucoseCross-Over StudiesGlucoseHumansPulse Wave AnalysisBlood GlucoseGlucoseelevated fasting glucosenutritional interventionpeanutsprediabetesrandomized controlled trial

Identifiers

PMID34562081
PMCPMC8754578

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.