DLM: Trans Fatty Acids (2001)

Citation:
 
Study Design:
Class:
- Click here for explanation of classification scheme.
Quality Rating:
Research Purpose:

To calculate the changes in average blood lipid levels by substituting butter for margarine.

Inclusion Criteria:
  • Subjects with stable weight
  • Two-thirds of intervention exchanged margarine isocalorically for butter/dairy fat
  • Differences in total fat/carbohydrate between butter and margarine diets made up less than 3% of kcal.
Exclusion Criteria:

None.

Description of Study Protocol:
  • Criteria for studies: MEDLINE and Biological Abstracts
  • 1966 to 1995 Experimental studies: Comparison of butter and margarine on blood lipids.
Data Collection Summary:
Outcome measures: Serum lipids
Description of Actual Data Sample:
Summary of Results:
  • 20 studies met the analysis criteria
  • 49 comparisons replaced 10% of kcal with margarine
    • Hard­ trans stick margarine 
      • TC 0.19mmol per L
      • LDL chol 0.11mmol per L
      • HDL chol 0.02mmol per L
      • No change in TC/HDL ratio
    • Soft  trans margarine
      • TC 0.25mmol per L
      • LDL chol 0.20mmol per L
      • TC/HDL ratio 0.20
      • No change in HDL cholesterol.
Author Conclusion:

The authors support the recommendation that consumers should replace hard fats with liquid oils and soft fats to reduce the intake of both saturated fat and trans fatty acids.

Funding Source:
Not-for-profit
1
Reviewer Comments:
Quality Criteria Checklist: Review Articles
Relevance Questions
  1. Will the answer if true, have a direct bearing on the health of patients? Yes
  2. Is the outcome or topic something that patients/clients/population groups would care about? Yes
  3. Is the problem addressed in the review one that is relevant to dietetics practice? Yes
  4. Will the information, if true, require a change in practice? Yes
 
Validity Questions
  1. Was the question for the review clearly focused and appropriate? Yes
  2. Was the search strategy used to locate relevant studies comprehensive? Were the databases searched and the search termsused described? Yes
  3. Were explicit methods used to select studies to include in the review? Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified andappropriate? Wereselectionmethods unbiased? Yes
  4. Was there an appraisal of the quality and validity of studies included in the review? Were appraisal methodsspecified,appropriate, andreproducible? Yes
  5. Were specific treatments/interventions/exposures described? Were treatments similar enough to be combined? Yes
  6. Was the outcome of interest clearly indicated? Were other potential harms and benefits considered? Yes
  7. Were processes for data abstraction, synthesis, and analysis described? Were they applied consistently acrossstudies and groups? Was thereappropriate use of qualitative and/or quantitative synthesis? Was variation in findings among studies analyzed? Were heterogeneity issued considered? If data from studies were aggregated for meta-analysis, was the procedure described? Yes
  8. Are the results clearly presented in narrative and/or quantitative terms? If summary statistics are used, are levels ofsignificance and/or confidence intervals included? Yes
  9. Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? Are limitations ofthe review identified anddiscussed? Yes
  10. Was bias due to the review's funding or sponsorship unlikely? Yes