Evidence Hub

Intermittent fasting strategies and their effects on body weight and other cardiometabolic risk factors: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials

Zhila Semnani-Azad, T. Khan, L. Chiavaroli, Victoria Chen, H. Bhatt, Alisia Chen, Nicholas Chiang, J. Oguntala et al.

British medical journal, 2025

6,582 participants · 67 citations

Abstract

Abstract Objective To assess the effect of intermittent fasting diets, with continuous energy restriction or unrestricted (ad-libitum) diets on intermediate cardiometabolic outcomes from randomised clinical trials. Design Systematic review and network meta-analysis. Data sources Medline, Embase, and central databases from inception to 14 November 2024. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Randomised clinical trials comparing the association of intermittent fasting diets (alternate day fasting, time restricted eating, and whole day fasting), continuous energy restriction, and ad-libitum diets were included. Main outcomes Outcomes included body weight (primary) and measures of anthropometry, glucose metabolism, lipid profiles, blood pressure, C-reactive protein, and markers of liver disease. Data synthesis A network meta-analysis based on a frequentist framework was performed with data expressed as mean difference with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The certainty of the evidence was assessed using grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE). Results 99 randomised clinical trials involving 6582 adults of varying health conditions (720 healthy, 5862 existing health conditions) were identified. All intermittent fasting and continuous energy restriction diet strategies reduced body weight when compared with ad-libitum diet. Compared with continuous energy restriction, alternate day fasting was the only form of intermittent fasting diet…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 6,582 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