Home › Research › Prevention and risk
n‐3 Omega fatty acids: a review of current knowledge
Uğur Göğüş, Chris Smith. International Journal of Food Science & Technology, 2010-02-10
Topic: Gut, metabolism and diet
The very long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) (C18–C22) and n‐3 Omega PUFAs are apparently widely accepted as a part of modern nutrition because of their beneficial effects on metabolism. Most significantly, the reported protective effect of the n‐3 omega fatty acids in relation to cardiovascular inflammatory diseases and cancer has led people to consider these fatty acids more beneficial than other dietary supplements. Unfortunately, there is a lack of studies relating to the physical performance increasing effect in sports diets, cholesterol‐reducing effect in meat technology, effects on human serum profile, the application dose and the side effects with/without omega‐6 PUFAs, which has left us with several crucial unanswered questions. We still do not know the correct dose of n‐3 omega and the correct ratio of n‐3 omega to n‐6 omega or their possible contraindications when combined with drugs, other foods and herbal supplements. Another reported aspect of n‐3 omega PUFAs is that they protect and even enhance the effect in medical treatment of important diseases such as Alzheimer’s, multiple sclerosis and cancer. These reports led to PUFAs becoming one of the most accepted and consumed food supplements. Despite this weight of evidence and the considerable current use, there is still a need for studies, which will determine whether the n‐3 omega fatty acids are in fact important functional supplements with no adverse effects. This review will attempt to outline the current position of n‐3 omega fatty acids in the field of clinical nutrition and healthcare and outline the studies needed to determine whether there are significant advantages in taking them as food supplement without any adverse effects.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Göğüş, U., & Smith, C. (2010). n‐3 Omega fatty acids: a review of current knowledge. International Journal of Food Science & Technology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2009.02151.x
Vancouver
Göğüş U, Smith C. n‐3 Omega fatty acids: a review of current knowledge. International Journal of Food Science & Technology. 2010. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2621.2009.02151.x.
BibTeX
@article{gogus2010-40b4d23b,
author = {Göğüş, Uğur and Smith, Chris},
title = {{n‐3 Omega fatty acids: a review of current knowledge}},
journal = {International Journal of Food Science \& Technology},
year = {2010},
doi = {10.1111/j.1365-2621.2009.02151.x},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2009.02151.x}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Most significantly, the reported protective effect of the n‐3 omega fatty acids in relation to cardiovascular inflammatory diseases and cancer has led people to consider these fatty acids more beneficial than other dietary supplements.
- This review will attempt to outline the current position of n‐3 omega fatty acids in the field of clinical nutrition and healthcare and outline the studies needed to determine whether there are significant advantages in taking them as food supplement without any adverse effects.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Prevention →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 34/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 20 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 34 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (International Journal of Food Science & Technology) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2010 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 1 / 2 | Not in PubMed, but has a DOI |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 20 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 20 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 34 out of 100. |
| Total | 34 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related studies in Prevention and risk
Also in Prevention and risk
265 studies in the library are filed under Prevention and risk with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Prevention and risk hub.