↓ Skip to main content

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

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 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  -3 PUFAs affect insulin resistance in a sex-specific manner? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Published in
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, September 2016
DOI 10.3945/ajcn.116.138172
Pubmed ID
Authors

Abbott, Kylie A, Burrows, Tracy L, Thota, Rohith N, Acharya, Shamasunder, Garg, Manohar L, K. A. Abbott, T. L. Burrows, R. N. Thota, S. Acharya, M. 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.

Twitter Demographics

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 2%
United Kingdom 1 2%
New Zealand 1 2%
Unknown 38 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 22%
Other 5 12%
Student > Bachelor 5 12%
Professor 4 10%
Student > Master 4 10%
Other 14 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 15%
Unspecified 5 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Other 5 12%

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
#7,093,687
of 11,389,380 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
#6,795
of 8,284 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#144,098
of 260,241 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
#92
of 106 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,389,380 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,284 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.4. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 260,241 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.