Evidence Hub

Clinical effectiveness of quercetin supplementation in the management of weight loss: a pooled analysis of randomized controlled trials

Hao-Hai Huang, D. Liao, Yong Dong, R. Pu

Diabetes, Metabolic Syndrome and Obesity : Targets and Therapy, 2019

525 participants · 26 citations

Abstract

Purpose: The previous investigations which considered the possible effect of the quercetin supplementation for overweight and obesity have led to inconsistent results. Here, we aimed to evaluate the effects of quercetin on weight loss using a meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs). Methods: Relevant studies were systematically searched from the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and Scopus databases. RCTs that investigated the effects of quercetin on weight loss in humans were included for quality assessment, meta-analyses, sensitivity analysis, subgroup analyses, and publication bias assessment. Effect size was expressed as weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% CI by using a random-effects model. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to rate the level of evidence. Results: Nine RCTs (11 treatment arms) with 525 participants were finally included for data pooling. Our meta-analysis revealed that daily quercetin supplementation did not significantly affect the body weight (WMD: −0.35 kg, 95% CI: −2.03, 1.33; P=0.68), body mass index (WMD: −0.04 kg/m2, 95% CI: −0.54, 0.45; P=0.87), waist circumference (WMD: −0.37 cm, 95% CI: −1.81, 1.06; P=0.61), and waist to hip ratio (WMD: −0.01, 95% CI: −0.03, 0.01; P=0.48). Subgroup analysis could not identify factors significantly influencing these parameters. These results were robust in sensitivity analysis, and no significant publication bias was found.…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 525 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free