Evidence Hub

Exploring the effects of phenolic compounds to reduce intestinal damage and improve the intestinal barrier integrity: A systematic review of in vivo animal studies

Sandoval-Ramírez BA, Catalán Ú, Pedret A, Valls RM, Motilva MJ, Rubió L, Solà R

Clinical nutrition (Edinburgh, Scotland), 2021

6 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The integrity of the intestinal barrier in the diseased is key to prevent further complications and disease such as sepsis and death, whereas, the role of food bioactive molecules (i. e. phenolic compounds (PCs) on the intestinal barrier, is still unknown. The current aim was to explore the benefits of the oral PC administration on the intestinal barrier integrity in animals.

METHODS: The effects of PCs on the intestinal barrier integrity in in vivo animal models of intestinal inflammation were assessed up-to August 2020 from the PubMed, SCOPUS, and Cochrane Library databases under the PRISMA methodology. The risk of bias was assessed from ARRAY and SCYRCLE tools.

RESULTS: From 1241 articles, 14 studies were included. In animals, oral resveratrol (n = 6) improves the intestinal barrier integrity and reduces intestinal damage. Additionally, grape seed extract (n = 2), curcumin (n = 1), genistein (n = 1), chlorogenic acid (n = 1), grape pomace (n = 1), olive leaf (n = 1) or cranberry extract (n = 1) improve the intestinal barrier integrity downregulating various inflammatory molecules (TNF-α, and other interleukins), and increasing the antioxidant enzymes in animals. Furthermore, resveratrol, quercetin, epigallocatechin, and other PCs improve the epithelial barrier integrity and pro-inflammatory molecule expression in the intestinal epithelia.

CONCLUSIONS: The oral PC administration in animals improves the intestinal barrier integrity and function from three…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in animal, not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 6 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