Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37718370›Full record

SynthesisEuropean journal of nutrition2024

Protein intake and type 2 diabetes mellitus: an umbrella review of systematic reviews for the evidence-based guideline for protein intake of the German Nutrition Society.

Matthias B Schulze, Julia Haardt, Anna M Amini, Nicole Kalotai, Andreas Lehmann, Annemarie Schmidt, Anette E Buyken, Sarah Egert, Sabine Ellinger, Anja Kroke and 9 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European journal of nutrition, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
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

19 authors at 11 institutions in 3 countries.

Matthias B SchulzeDepartment of Molecular Epidemiology, German Institute of Human Nutrition Potsdam-Rehbruecke, Arthur-Scheunert-Allee 114-116, 14558, Nuthetal, Germany. corresponding_author@dge.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0830-5277
Julia HaardtGerman Nutrition Society, Bonn, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7394-4481
Anna M AminiGerman Nutrition Society, Bonn, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4288-1769
Nicole KalotaiGerman Nutrition Society, Bonn, Germany.
Andreas LehmannGerman Nutrition Society, Bonn, Germany.
Annemarie SchmidtGerman Nutrition Society, Bonn, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4607-4534
Anette E BuykenInstitute of Nutrition, Consumption and Health; Faculty of Natural Sciences, Paderborn University, Paderborn, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4301-1127
Sarah EgertDepartment of Nutrition and Food Science, Nutritional Physiology, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4092-8981
Sabine EllingerDepartment of Nutrition and Food Science, Human Nutrition, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9988-9406
Anja KrokeDepartment of Nutritional, Food and Consumer Sciences, Fulda University of Applied Sciences, Fulda, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0253-1644
Tilman KühnThe Institute for Global Food Security, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7702-317X
Sandrine LouisDepartment of Physiology and Biochemistry of Nutrition, Max Rubner-Institut, Karlsruhe, Germany.
Katharina NimptschMolecular Epidemiology Research Group, Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine (MDC) in the Helmholtz Association, Berlin, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7877-205X
Lukas SchwingshacklInstitute for Evidence in Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3407-7594
Roswitha SienerDepartment of Urology, University Stone Center, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5068-6950
Armin ZittermannClinic for Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Herz- und Diabeteszentrum Nordrhein-Westfalen, Ruhr University Bochum, Bad Oeynhausen, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6085-6554
Bernhard WatzlDepartment of Physiology and Biochemistry of Nutrition, Max Rubner-Institut, Karlsruhe, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0762-7423
Stefan LorkowskiInstitute of Nutritional Sciences, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Jena, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9649-840X
German Nutrition Society
Max Rubner Institut · DEUniversity of Bonn · DEFriedrich Schiller University Jena · DEFulda University of Applied Sciences · DEHeart and Diabetes Center North Rhine-Westphalia · DEMax Delbrück Center · DEPaderborn University · DEQueen's University Belfast · GBUniversity Hospital Bonn · DEUniversity of Freiburg · DEUniversity of Potsdam · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeProtein-rich foods show heterogeneous associations with the risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D) and it remains unclear whether habitual protein intake is related to T2D risk. We carried out an umbrella review of systematic reviews (SR) of randomised trials and/or cohort studies on protein intake in relation to risks of T2D.

methodsFollowing a pre-specified protocol (PROSPERO: CRD42018082395), we retrieved SRs on protein intake and T2D risk published between July 1st 2009 and May 22nd 2022, and assessed the methodological quality and outcome-specific certainty of the evidence using a modified version of AMSTAR 2 and NutriGrade, respectively. The overall certainty of evidence was rated according to predefined criteria.

resultsEight SRs were identified of which six contained meta-analyses. The majority of SRs on total protein intake had moderate or high methodological quality and moderate outcome-specific certainty of evidence according to NutriGrade, however, the latter was low for the majority of SRs on animal and plant protein. Six of the eight SRs reported risk increases with both total and animal protein. According to one SR, total protein intake in studies was ~ 21 energy percentage (%E) in the highest intake category and 15%E in the lowest intake category. Relative Risks comparing high versus low intake in most recent SRs ranged from 1.09 (two SRs, 95% CIs 1.02-1.15 and 1.06-1.13) to 1.11 (1.05-1.16) for total protein (between 8 and 12 cohort studies included) and from 1.13 (1.08-1.19) to 1.19 (two SRs, 1.11-1.28 and 1.11-1.28) (8-9 cohort studies) for animal protein. However, SRs on RCTs examining major glycaemic traits (HbA

conclusionHigher total protein intake was possibly associated with higher T2D risk, while there is insufficient evidence for a risk increase with higher intakes of animal protein and a risk decrease with plant protein intake. Given that most SRs on plant protein did not indicate an association, there is possibly a lack of an effect.

Indexed as

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2HumansInsulinNutritional StatusPlant ProteinsPractice Guidelines as TopicSystematic Reviews as TopicInsulinPlant ProteinsGuidelineProteinType 2 diabetes mellitusUmbrella review

Identifiers

PMID37718370
PMCPMC10799123
OpenAlexW4386812470

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.