ArticleEuropean journal of clinical nutrition2007
Limited evidence for effects of diet for type 2 diabetes from systematic reviews.
Article in European journal of clinical nutrition, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Lifestyle counseling in routine care and long-term glucose, blood pressure, and cholesterol control in patients with diabetes.Diabetes care · 2012Article
- The role of diet and lifestyle in primary, secondary, and tertiary diabetes prevention: a review of meta-analyses.The review of diabetic studies : RDS · 2010Review
- Diet, delusion and diabetes.Diabetologia · 2009Article
- Effectiveness of an intensive nutritional intervention in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: results from a pilot study.The review of diabetic studies : RDS · 2007Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveSystematic reviews are an appraised method to summarize research in a concise and transparent way, and may enable to draw conclusions beyond the sum of results of individual studies. We assessed the results, quality and external validity of systematic reviews on diet in patients with type 2 diabetes. DESIGN, SETTING, SUBJECTS: We systematically searched for systematic reviews on nutritional interventions in patients with type 2 diabetes that used a reproducible search strategy in at least one major database that applied some form of quality assessment. We assessed quality and the external validity of the retrieved systematic reviews. Outcomes were defined as statistical meta-analyses or narrative results using a predefined and reproducible method.
resultsSix systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria, investigating dietary interventions in general (n=3), chromium supplementation (n=1), fish-oil (n=1) or herbs and nutrition supplements (n=1). Quality assessment showed minimal/minor flaws in four cases and major/extensive flaws in two cases. All reviews had insufficient data needed to judge external validity. In reviews with minimal/minor flaws, we found beneficial effects of very-low-calorie diets and fish-oil supplements. However, the external validity of these results could not be assessed sufficiently.
conclusionsSystematic reviews largely failed to produce knowledge beyond the sum of the original studies. Furthermore, judgment of external validity was hampered in most cases owing to missing data. To improve the quality and usefulness of systematic reviews of dietary interventions, we recommend the application of more focused research questions, but with broader inclusion criteria, for example, the use of observational studies. SPONSORSHIP: Internal funding Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre.
Indexed as
Identifiers
17251927What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.