Clinical effectiveness of quercetin supplementation in the management of weight loss: a pooled analysis of randomized controlled trials

Abstract

Purpose:

The previous investigations which considered the possible effect of the quercetin supplementation for overweight and obesity have led to inconsistent results. Here, we aimed to evaluate the effects of quercetin on weight loss using a meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs).

Methods:

Relevant studies were systematically searched from the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and Scopus databases. RCTs that investigated the effects of quercetin on weight loss in humans were included for quality assessment, meta-analyses, sensitivity analysis, subgroup analyses, and publication bias assessment. Effect size was expressed as weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% CI by using a random-effects model. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to rate the level of evidence.

Results:

Nine RCTs (11 treatment arms) with 525 participants were finally included for data pooling. Our meta-analysis revealed that daily quercetin supplementation did not significantly affect the body weight (WMD: −0.35 kg, 95% CI: −2.03, 1.33; P=0.68), body mass index (WMD: −0.04 kg/m², 95% CI: −0.54, 0.45; P=0.87), waist circumference (WMD: −0.37 cm, 95% CI: −1.81, 1.06; P=0.61), and waist to hip ratio (WMD: −0.01, 95% CI: −0.03, 0.01; P=0.48). Subgroup analysis could not identify factors significantly influencing these parameters. These results were robust in sensitivity analysis, and no significant publication bias was found.

Conclusion:

The current evidence suggests that quercetin intake did not show a notably favorable effect on weight loss. Future well-designed and long-term clinical trials are required to confirm these results.

Keywords:

• quercetin
• body weight
• obesity
• overweight
• meta-analysis

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Traditional Medicine Research Program of Guangdong Province (No. 20181270).

Disclosure

The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.