Table 5.

Study characteristics of meta-analyses.

Reference	No. Studies	Statistical Method	Min. Duration	Participants	Effects of MUFA
Hegsted et al. 1993 [45]	n = 77	Multiple regression	n.d.	n.d.	↔ TC, LDL-C, HDL-C
Mensink et al. 1992 [61]	n = 28	meta-regression	14 days	682	↓ TG, HDL-C:LDL-C
					↑ HDL-C
					↔ TC, LDL
Gardner et al. 1995 ** [47]	n = 14	Standardized effect size	3 weeks	439	↑ TG *
					↔ LDL-C, HDL-C
Yu et al. 1995 [48]	n = 18	Meta-regression analysis	n.d.	804	↓ TC, LDL-C
					↑ HDL-C
Clarke et al. 1997 [49]	n = 91	Multilevel regression analysis	2 weeks	5910	↑ HDL-C
					↔ TC, LDL-C
Garg 1998 [50]	n = 9	meta-analysis	2 weeks	133	↓ TG, TC, VLDL-C, FG
					↑ HDL-C, Apo A-1
					↔LDL-C, Apo B, FI, HbA1c
Mensink et al. 2003 [30]	n = 60	meta-regression	13 days	1672	↓ TG, LDL-C, Apo B, TC:HDL-C
					↑ HDL-C, Apo A-1
					↔ TC
Shah et al. 2007 [46]	n = 10	Random effect modell	3 weeks	400	↓ SBP, DBP *
Cao et al. 2009 [51]	n = 30	Random effect modell	2 weeks	1213	↓ TG
					↑ HDL-C, Apo A 1
					↔ LDL-C
Jakobsen et al. 2009 [52]	n = 11	Random effect meta-analysis	4 years	344,696	↑ risk of CHD events
					↔ risk of CHD death
Kodama et al. 2009 [53]	n = 11	Fixed effect modell	10 days	329	↓TG
					↔ FG, FI, TC, HDL-C, LDL-C
Mente et al. 2009 [54]	n = 146	Random effect meta-analysis	n.d.	101,521	↓ CHD events
Mozaffarian and Clarke 2009 [55]	n = 13	Multilevel regression analysis	2 weeks	554	↓ TC, TG, LDL-C, Apo B, TC:HDL-C
					↑ HDL-C, Apo A-1
Skeaff et al. 2009 [56]	n = 28	Random effect meta-analysis	4 years	280,000	↔ risk of CHD death/events
Schwingshackl et al. 2011 [57]	n = 12	Random effect meta-analysis	6 months	1990	↓ FM, SBP, DBP
					↔W, WC, TC, LDL-C, HDL-C, TG, CRP
Schwingshackl et al. 2011 [58]	n = 9	Random effect meta-analysis	6 months	1547	↓ HbA1c, FG
					↔ FI, HOMA-IR

↑ significant increase; ↓ significant decrease; ↔ no significant effects; * p = 0.05; ** MUFA vs. PUFA; MUFA/PUFA for SFA decrease LDL-Cholesterol; n.d.: no data.