Outcomes in Randomized Clinical Trials Testing Changes in Daily Water Intake: A Systematic Review
Hakam N, Guzman Fuentes JL, Nabavizadeh B, Sudhakar A, Li KD, Nicholas C, Lui J, Tahir P, Jones CP, Bent S, Breyer BN
JAMA network open · 8 citations
Review labels
Neutral facts our review recorded about how this study was done. They describe method, never whether we like the result.
How it was studied
- Design
- Systematic review (indexed by PubMed)
- Studied in
- People
- Main outcome
- Clinical events such as disease or death
Who paid for it
- Funding
- Funding not disclosed
Publication
- Published
- 2024-11-25 · JAMA Netw Open · vol. 7 · issue 11 · p. e2447621
- Publisher
- American Medical Association
- Cited
- 18 citations · more than 95% of similar papers · 4.1× the field average
- Impact
- Top 10% most cited in its field
- References
- 45 works
- Access
- Open access (journal) · CC-BY
- Research areas
- Thermoregulation and physiological responses · Sodium Intake and Health · Magnesium in Health and Disease
- Keywords
- Medicine, Randomized controlled trial, Psychological intervention, Weight loss, Systematic review, Clinical trial, Crossover study, Diabetes mellitus, Urinary system, Meta-analysis, MEDLINE, Internal medicine, Obesity, Alternative medicine, Placebo, Pathology
- MeSH
- humans, urinary tract infections, weight loss, blood glucose, drinking, adult, middle aged, female, male, randomized controlled trials as topic
11 authors
From US
- Nizar HakamUniversity of California, San Francisco
- Jose Luis Guzman FuentesUniversity of California, San Francisco
- Behnam NabavizadehCornell University; Weill Cornell Medicine
- Architha SudhakarUniversity of California, San Francisco
- Kevin Danis LiUniversity of California, San Francisco
- Catherine NicholasUniversity of California, San Francisco
Abstract
Importance
Several public recommendations exist regarding the amount of daily water intake, yet the supporting evidence is not clear, and benefits of increasing water consumption are not well-established.
Objective
To summarize evidence from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) pertaining to the health-related outcomes associated with increased or decreased daily water consumption.
Evidence review
A systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase was performed up to April 6, 2023. Studies were included if they aimed to assess the impact of daily water consumption by any defined amount on any health-related outcome.
Findings
Of 1464 records screened, 18 (1%) eligible studies were included in the review. Among eligible studies, 15 (83%) were parallel group RCTs, and 3 (16%) were crossover studies. Interventions in these studies consisted of a recommendation to alter the daily amount of water intake by a specific amount for a predefined period ranging between 4 days and 5 years, while the control groups were mostly asked to maintain their usual intake habits. The studies assessed various populations. Recurring primary end points included weight loss, fasting blood glucose level, headache, urinary tract infection, and nephrolithiasis. Consuming additional water was associated with greater weight loss (range, 44%-100% more than control conditions) and fewer nephrolithiasis events (15 fewer events per 100 participants over 5 years). Single studies suggested benefits related to migraine prevention, urinary tract infection, diabetes control, and hypotension. Ten studies (55%) reported at least 1 positive result, and 8 studies (44%) reported negative results.
Conclusions and relevance
This systematic review found that there is a limited number of clinical trials in the literature assessing the benefits of increasing water intake related to a large variety of health outcomes. While the quality and quantity of evidence is limited, a small number of studies suggested benefits of water intake on weight loss and nephrolithiasis, while single studies raised the possibility of benefits for patients with migraine, urinary tract infection, diabetes, and hypotension. Given the low cost and low adverse-effect profile of water, further well-designed studies should assess benefits in these specific conditions.
Abstract via Europe PMC. Copyright remains with the authors or publisher (CC BY).
Community trust
Loading…
How much do you trust this study's findings?
Comments
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inSomething wrong here?
Flag this study if its information, labels or funding look wrong. An editor reviews every flag.
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inEducational information about published research. Not medical advice, and not a recommendation to start or stop anything.