SCI: Lipid Abnormalities (2007)
Not noted by author
Protocol for review was not described. Carbohydrate metabolism and diabetes and lipid metabolism and cardiovascular disease was reviewed in relation to spinal cord injury.
Not noted by author.
Methods for study inclusion not specified.
Narrative review of the literature without any criteria defined by author except for carbohydrate metabolism and diabetes and lipid metabolism and cardiovascular disease in relation to spinal cord injury.
Blinding used (if applicable)
Intervention (if applicable)
Statistical analysis not performed.
Timing of Measurements
126 references cited.
Attrition (final N): 126
Age: Not applicable
Ethnicity: Not applicable
Other relevant demographics: Not applicable
Anthropometrics (e.g., were groups same or different on important measures)
When compared to the healthy population, people with SCI are more likely to have oral carbohydrate intolerance, insulin resistance, elevated low-density lipoproten cholesterol, and reduced high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, associated with increased prevalence of diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease.
Modifiable risk factor such as obesity, inactivity, dietary factors, and smoking need to be addressed in individuals with SCI because of incresed risk factors for diabetes mellitus and heart disase. To reduce morbidity and mortality associated with these risk factors, periodic screening for carbohydrate and lipid abnormalities is recommended along with appropriate interventions.
|Government:||Department of Veteran Affairs, NIDRR|
|University/Hospital:||Mount Sinai School of Medicine|
- "Traditional" review article with no description of search strategy, article selection, or critique of sources cited.
Quality Criteria Checklist: Review Articles
|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|
|1.||Was the question for the review clearly focused and appropriate?||No|
|2.||Was the search strategy used to locate relevant studies comprehensive? Were the databases searched and the search termsused described?||No|
|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?||Yes|
|6.||Was the outcome of interest clearly indicated? Were other potential harms and benefits considered?||Yes|
|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?||No|
|9.||Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? Are limitations ofthe review identified anddiscussed?||No|
|10.||Was bias due to the review's funding or sponsorship unlikely?||Yes|