DM: Prevention and Treatment of Cardiovascular Disease (2001)
Recruitment
Not specified.
Design
Consensus Statement.
Blinding Used (if applicable)
Not applicable.
Intervention (if applicable)
Not applicable.
Statistical Analysis
Data not analyzed statistically.
Timing of Measurements
Not applicable - consensus report.
Dependent Variables
Not applicable - consensus report.
Independent Variables
Not applicable - consensus report.
Control Variables
Initial N: Not described
Attrition (Final N): Not described
Age: Not mentioned
Ethnicity: Not mentioned
Other relevant demographics:
Anthropometrics:
Location: Studies from all over the world
- extends overall survival
- improves quality of life
- reduces need for intervention procedures (angioplasty and CABG)
- reduces the incidence of subsequent MI
- smoking cessation
- blood pressure control (<135/85 mmHg)
- lipid management
- LDL < 100 mg/dl
- HDL > 35 mg/dl
- TG <200 mg/dl
- glucose control HbA1c<1% above normal
- weight management
- antiplatelet agents/anticoagulants
- ace inhibitors (post MI)
- beta blockers
Management of Diabetic Nephropathy
Slowing the progression nephropathy in diabetes include the following interventions: 1. control of hyperglycemia 2. treatment of hypertension 3. sodium restriction to ~2,400 mg/d 4. protein restriction to 0.8 g/kg/d
Not-for-profit |
|
The RD needs to monitor microalbuminuria and adjust dietary protein intake when urine albumin is >30 gm/d.
Quality Criteria Checklist: Review Articles
|
|||
Relevance Questions | |||
1. | Will the answer if true, have a direct bearing on the health of patients? | Yes | |
2. | Is the outcome or topic something that patients/clients/population groups would care about? | Yes | |
3. | Is the problem addressed in the review one that is relevant to dietetics practice? | Yes | |
4. | Will the information, if true, require a change in practice? | Yes | |
Validity Questions | |||
1. | Was the question for the review clearly focused and appropriate? | N/A | |
2. | Was the search strategy used to locate relevant studies comprehensive? Were the databases searched and the search termsused described? | ??? | |
3. | Were explicit methods used to select studies to include in the review? Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified andappropriate? Wereselectionmethods unbiased? | No | |
4. | Was there an appraisal of the quality and validity of studies included in the review? Were appraisal methodsspecified,appropriate, andreproducible? | No | |
5. | Were specific treatments/interventions/exposures described? Were treatments similar enough to be combined? | N/A | |
6. | Was the outcome of interest clearly indicated? Were other potential harms and benefits considered? | N/A | |
7. | Were processes for data abstraction, synthesis, and analysis described? Were they applied consistently acrossstudies and groups? Was thereappropriate use of qualitative and/or quantitative synthesis? Was variation in findings among studies analyzed? Were heterogeneity issued considered? If data from studies were aggregated for meta-analysis, was the procedure described? | No | |
8. | Are the results clearly presented in narrative and/or quantitative terms? If summary statistics are used, are levels ofsignificance and/or confidence intervals included? | N/A | |
9. | Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? Are limitations ofthe review identified anddiscussed? | N/A | |
10. | Was bias due to the review's funding or sponsorship unlikely? | Yes | |