ABSTRACT
CONTEXT: Coconut oil is rich in medium-chain fatty acids and has been claimed to have numerous health benefits. OBJECTIVE: This review aimed to examine the evidence surrounding coconut oil consumption and its impact on cardiovascular health. DATA SOURCES: A systematic literature search of the PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and CINAHL databases, up to May 2019, was performed. DATA EXTRACTION: Study characteristics including study design, population, intervention, comparator, outcome, and source of funding were summarized. DATA ANALYSIS: Meta-analyses included 12 studies to provide estimates of effects. Subgroup analyses were performed to account for any differences in the study-level characteristics. When compared with plant oils and animal oils, coconut oil was found to significantly increase high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) by 0.57 mg/dL (95%CI, 0.40-0.74 mg/dL; I2 = 6.7%) and 0.33 mg/dL (0.01-0.65 mg/dL; I2 = 0%), respectively. Coconut oil significantly raised low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) by 0.26 mg/dL (0.09-0.43 mg/dL; I2 = 59.7%) compared with plant oils and lowered LDL-C (-0.37 mg/dL; -0.69 to -0.05 mg/dL; I2 = 48.1%) compared with animal oils. No significant effects on triglyceride were observed. Better lipid profiles were demonstrated with the virgin form of coconut oil. CONCLUSION: Compared with animal oils, coconut oil demonstrated a better lipid profile n comparison with plant oils, coconut oil significantly increased HDL-C and LDL-C.
Subject(s)
Cholesterol, HDL/blood , Cholesterol, LDL/blood , Coconut Oil/pharmacology , Coconut Oil/metabolism , Humans , Plant Oils/pharmacology , Triglycerides/bloodABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of hydrotherapy versus land-based therapy in patients with musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) in Singapore. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was constructed to compare the cost-effectiveness of hydrotherapy to land-based therapy over 3 months from societal perspective. Target population comprised patients with low back pain (LBP), osteoarthritis (OA), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR). Subgroup analyses were carried out to determine the cost-effectiveness of hydrotherapy in individual MSDs. Relative treatment effects were obtained through a systematic review of published data. RESULTS: Compared to land-based therapy, hydrotherapy was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of SGD 27 471 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, which was below the willingness-to-pay threshold of SGD 70 000 per QALY (one gross domestic product per capita in Singapore in 2015). For the respective MSDs, hydrotherapy were dominant (more effective and less costly) in THR and TKR, cost-effective for LBP and RA, and not cost-effective for OA. Treatment adherence and cost of hydrotherapy were key drivers to the ICER values. CONCLUSIONS: Hydrotherapy was a cost-effective rehabilitation compared to land-based therapy for a population with MSDs in Singapore. However, the benefit of hydrotherapy was not observed in patients with OA.