Advanced Search

Study Preview



Study Title and Description

Effects of daily consumption of honey solution on hematological indices and blood levels of minerals and enzymes in normal individuals.



Key Questions Addressed
2 What are the relationships between fructose consumption and indices of liver health?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
4 Risk of Bias - Cohort, Case-Control, and Single Arm Studies
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Primary Publication Information
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
TitleData
Title Effects of daily consumption of honey solution on hematological indices and blood levels of minerals and enzymes in normal individuals.
Author Al-Waili NS.
Country Dubai Specialized Medical Center and Medical Research Laboratories, Islamic Establishment for Education, Dubai, United Arab Emirates. noori786@yahoo.com
Year 2003
Numbers Pubmed ID: 12935325
1348 (internal)

Secondary Publication Information
There are currently no secondary publications defined for this study.


Extraction Form: Fructose and NAFLD
Arms
Number Title Description Comments
1 Honey 38% Fructose
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Design Details
Question... Follow Up Answer Follow-up Answer
Study Design Single Arm Trial
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Enrollment Years 4 week trial
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Trial or Cohort Name nd
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Funding Source nd
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Inclusion Criteria -normal, healthy volunteer (medical staff including doctors, nurses, and laboratory technicians) -no signs or symptoms of any diseases
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Exclusion Criteria nd
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Location United Arab Emirates
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Counfounders No (Skip question #10)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |


Baseline Characteristics
Question Honey Total Comments
AnswerFollow-up AnswerFollow-up
N Enrolled 10
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
N Analyzed 10
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Mean (SD) Age, yrs 31.2
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Age range (IQR) 20-45
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Male % 70
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Anthropometry data No data entered.
Alcohol Intake nd
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Co-morbidity (other diseases/conditions) none
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Other important baseline characteristics or baseline confounders nd
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Background Diet "regular diet" (control)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
nd
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
nd
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
nd
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
nd
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Race/Ethnicity nd
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |



Results & Comparisons


Results Data
Outcome: ALT      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Honey


0 N/A

N Analyzed 10
Unit IU/L
Baseline Value 27.1
Baseline Standard Deviation 17.0
Final Value 22.9
Final Standard Deviation 19.48
Net Difference -4.2
Net Difference 95% Confidence Interval nd
P value 0.1223
Outcome: AST      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Honey


0 N/A

N Analyzed 10
Unit IU/L
Baseline Value 17.8
Baseline Standard Deviation 6.73
Final Value 13.9
Final Standard Deviation 8.27
Net Difference -3.9
Net Difference 95% Confidence Interval nd
P value 0.0046
Outcome: ALP      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Honey


0 N/A

N Analyzed 10
Unit IU/L
Baseline Value 125
Baseline Standard Deviation 49.13
Final Value 119.7
Final Standard Deviation 41.3
Net Difference -5.3
Net Difference 95% Confidence Interval nd
P value 0.8308

Adverse Events
Arm or Total Title Description Comments
Honey Not Reported
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Total

Extraction Form: Cohort, Case Control, Single Arm Quality


Results & Comparisons


Results Data
Outcome: ALT      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Honey


0 N/A

N Analyzed 10
Unit IU/L
Baseline Value 27.1
Baseline Standard Deviation 17.0
Final Value 22.9
Final Standard Deviation 19.48
Net Difference -4.2
Net Difference 95% Confidence Interval nd
P value 0.1223
Outcome: AST      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Honey


0 N/A

N Analyzed 10
Unit IU/L
Baseline Value 17.8
Baseline Standard Deviation 6.73
Final Value 13.9
Final Standard Deviation 8.27
Net Difference -3.9
Net Difference 95% Confidence Interval nd
P value 0.0046
Outcome: ALP      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Honey


0 N/A

N Analyzed 10
Unit IU/L
Baseline Value 125
Baseline Standard Deviation 49.13
Final Value 119.7
Final Standard Deviation 41.3
Net Difference -5.3
Net Difference 95% Confidence Interval nd
P value 0.8308


Quality Dimensions
Dimension Value Notes Comments
1) Representativeness of the exposed cohort. b
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
2) Ascertainment of nutrient exposure c
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
3) Demonstration that outcome of interest was not present at start of the study a
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
4) Description of a validated method to quantify the amount, per type, of nutrient of interest c
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
5) Assessment of outcome d
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
6) Was follow up long enough for outcomes to occur? a
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
7) Adequacy of follow up of cohort a
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
8) Analytic control for confounding (ANY confounders other than age and sex) a
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
9) Analytic control for confounding: anthropomentrics b
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
10) Analytic control for confounding: other nutrients b
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
11) Power calculation to support sample size No
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Quality Rating
Guideline Used Overall Rating
Medium