↓ Skip to main content

Do ω-3 PUFAs affect insulin resistance in a sex-specific manner? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials 1 , 2

Overview of attention for article published in American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
91 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Do ω-3 PUFAs affect insulin resistance in a sex-specific manner? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials 1 , 2
Published in
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, September 2016
DOI 10.3945/ajcn.116.138172
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kylie A Abbott, Tracy L Burrows, Rohith N Thota, Shamasunder Acharya, Manohar L Garg

Abstract

Evidence has suggested that omega-3 (n-3) polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) improve obesity-induced insulin resistance (IR); however, results from human intervention trials have been equivocal. Recently it has been reported that n-3 PUFA status is inversely associated with type 2 diabetes in women but not in men, suggesting a sex-dependent effect. We aimed to determine whether n-3 PUFA interventions affect IR in a sex-dependent manner. Five databases were searched (Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, and Pre-Medline) for randomized controlled trials. Searches were limited to the English language and to studies with adults aged >18 y. When possible, studies were pooled for a meta-analysis. The principle summary measure was the standardized mean difference (SMD) between groups. Thirty-one eligible trials were identified with a total of 1848 participants [men: 45.1%; weighted mean ± SD age: 52.5 ± 8.2 y; weighted body mass index (in kg/m(2)): 28.8 ± 3.0]. Seven studies were conducted in women, 4 studies were conducted in men, and the remaining studies pooled men and women together. Twenty-six trials were pooled for the meta-analysis (men: n = 2; women: n = 6). With all studies (n = 26) pooled, there was no effect of n-3 PUFA on IR at the group level (SMD: 0.089; 95% CI: -0.105, 0.283; P = 0.367). In trials of ≥6 wk, a significant improvement in IR was seen in women (SMD: -0.266; 95% CI: -0.524, -0.007; P = 0.045) but not in men (SMD: 0.619; 95% CI: -0.583, 1.820; P = 0.313). With this analysis, we provide preliminary evidence of a sex-dependent response of IR to an n-3 PUFA intervention. Additional studies are needed to confirm sex-dependent associations and to elucidate the potential mechanisms that are involved. This trial was registered at www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ as CRD42015017940.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
Unknown 89 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 13%
Student > Master 10 11%
Other 8 9%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Professor 6 7%
Other 22 24%
Unknown 25 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 8%
Social Sciences 2 2%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 30 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 June 2017.
All research outputs
#17,289,387
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
#11,108
of 12,615 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#215,089
of 330,356 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
#92
of 106 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,615 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.2. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,356 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 106 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.