↓ Skip to main content

Effects of low glycaemic index/low glycaemic load vs. high glycaemic index/ high glycaemic load diets on overweight/obesity and associated risk factors in children and adolescents: a systematic…

Overview of attention for article published in Nutrition Journal, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
12 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
149 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
Effects of low glycaemic index/low glycaemic load vs. high glycaemic index/ high glycaemic load diets on overweight/obesity and associated risk factors in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Nutrition Journal, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12937-015-0077-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lukas Schwingshackl, Lisa Patricia Hobl, Georg Hoffmann

Abstract

The objective of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to synthesize the available literature data investigating the effects of low glycaemic index/low glycamic load dietary regimens on anthropometric parameters, blood lipid profiles, and indicators of glucose metabolism in children and adolescents. Literature search was performed using the electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of trials with restrictions to randomized controlled trials, but no limitations concerning language and publication date. Parameters taken into account were: body weight, body mass index, z-score of body mass index, fat mass, fat-free mass, height, waist cicrumference, hip circumference, waist-to-hip ratio, total cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol, HDL-cholesterol, triglycerides, diastolic and systolic blood pressure, fasting serum glucose, fasting serum insulin, HOMA-index, glycosylated haemoglobin, and C-reactive protein. Meta-analyses were performed for each parameter to assess pooled effect in terms of weighted mean differences between the post-intervention (or differences in means) of the low glycaemic index diets and the respective high glycaemic index counterparts. Data analysis was performed using the Review Manager 5.3. software. Nine studies enrolling 1.065 children or adolescents met the inclusion criteria. Compared to diets providing a high gylcaemic index, low glycaemic index protocols resulted in significantly more pronounced decreases in serum triglycerides [mean differences -15.14 mg/dl, 95 %-CI (-26.26, -4.00)] and HOMA-index [mean difference -0.70, 95 %-CI (-1.37, -0.04), fixed-effects model only]. Other parameters under investigation were not affected by either low or high glycaemic indices. The present systematic review and meta-analysis provides evidence of a beneficial effect of a low glycaemic index/load diet in children and adolescents being either overweight or obese. Regarding the limitations of this analysis, further studies adopting a homogenous design are necessary to assure the present findings. Since low glycaemic index/load regimens were not associated with a deterioration of the outcome parameters, these diets should not be categorically excluded when looking for alternatives to change lifestyle habits in this age group.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 149 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 148 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 30 20%
Student > Master 29 19%
Researcher 15 10%
Student > Postgraduate 14 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 6%
Other 25 17%
Unknown 27 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 26 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 7%
Social Sciences 7 5%
Other 27 18%
Unknown 29 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 03 July 2020.
All research outputs
#1,141,222
of 18,094,095 outputs
Outputs from Nutrition Journal
#330
of 1,321 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,917
of 292,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nutrition Journal
#64
of 199 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,094,095 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,321 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its peers.
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 292,806 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 199 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.