Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26194154›Full record

ReviewCurrent diabetes reports2015

Salt Restriction in Diabetes.

Peter M Clifton, Jennifer B Keogh

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current diabetes reports, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 93% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Peter M CliftonSchool of Pharmacy and Medical Sciences, University of South Australia, P5-16 Playford Building, University of South Australia, GPO Box 2471, Adelaide, SA, 5001, Australia, peter.clifton@unisa.edu.au.
Jennifer B Keogh
University of South Australia · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There are no long-term interventions examining the effects of salt reduction in people with diabetes, and these are urgently required. Sodium reduction is controversial as it appears that an intake below 2.5 g and above 6 g/day of salt is associated with increased cardiovascular disease risk. However, pre-existing illness leading to a lower salt intake may confound the findings. Only a few studies have prospectively collected data on the sodium intake and excretion of people with diabetes and examined hard end points. In addition, future studies need to collect more data on food intake as well as coexistent illnesses to address potential confounding. The World Health Organization recommends a reduction to less than 5 g/day salt in adults. Given that the available evidence suggests that the salt intake of people with type 2 diabetes is generally well above 6 g/day it seems reasonable to ensure individuals with diabetes have an intake below 6 g/day. However, such recommendations need to be individualized.

Indexed as

AnimalsBlood PressureCardiovascular DiseasesDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2HumansHypertensionSodium Chloride, DietarySodium Chloride, Dietary

Identifiers

PMID26194154
OpenAlexW2167871570

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.