DM: Weight Management (2007)
McNulty SJ, Ur E, Williams G, for the Multicenter Sibutramine Study Group. A randomized trial of sibutramine in the management of obese type 2 diabetic patients treated with metformin. Diabetes Care 2003;125-131.
PubMed ID: 12502668- Type 2 diabetes (absence of ketonuria, rapid preceding weight loss, or need for insulin treatment);
- diabetes duration >6 months, BMI >/=27 kg/m2;
- duration of metformin treatment of 3 months to 2 years;
- fasting serum glucose 7.0-15.0 mmol/L; and,
- age 25-70 years.
- Current or previous evidence of ischemic heart disease, heart failure, or stroke;
- seated pulse rate >100 bpm;
- diastolic blood pressure >95mmHg;
- total fasting serum cholesterol >7.8 mmol/L;
- fasting serum triglycerides >5.6 mmol/L;
- serum creatinine >120 umol/L;
- serum liver enzymes or bilirubin levels that exceeded twice the upper limit of normal;
- weight change of >3 kg during the preceding 3 months;
- malignancy; and,
- significant neurological or psychiatric disturbances, including alcohol or drug abuse.
Women were excluded if they were pregnant, lactating or of child-bearing potential while not taking adequate contraceptive precautions.
Excluded medications (within the previous 3 months) were anorectic agents, laxatives, B-agonists (other than inhalers), cyproheptadine, phenothiazines, anti-depressants, anti-serotoninergics, barbiturates, anti-pyschotics, and oral corticosteroids.
Antihypertensive and lipid-lowering drugs were permitted if treatment was stable for at least 3 months.
Recruitment
Subjects were recruited from primary and secondary care centers in England, Canada, France, and Belgium.
Design
Multicenter randomized placebo-controlled double-blind trial
Blinding used (if applicable)
Double-blind
Intervention (if applicable)
- Placebo, 15 mg sibutramine per day, or 20 mg sibutramine per day for 12 months
- Subjects in the 20 mg sibutramine group initially took 15 mg daily for the first 2 weeks because of tolerability issues
- Patients were reviewed every 4 weeks, when dietetic advice was reinforced, medication compliance checked by capsule count, and adverse events and medication changes recorded.
- Metformin dosage was adjusted if necessary.
Statistical Analysis
- Power analysis indicated 60 subjects per group were needed to have a 90% power at the 5% significance level to detect a treatment effect of 0.8% in HbA1c, assuming a variability of 1.3%.
- Analyses were based on the intention-to-treat populations using the last observation carried forward.
- Changes from baseline to end point in body weight, anthropometry, and metabolic measures were analyzed using ANCOVA, with factors for treatment group and country and the relevant baseline as a covariate.
- Pairwise comparisons between each sibutramine group and placebo were carried out using Fisher's protected least-squares difference test.
- Metabolic measures were ranked before analysis and Hodges-Lehmann estimates of treatment differences were determined.
- Analyses were also carried out on within-group changes, stratified by weight loss (<5, >/=5, and >/=10%), using one-sample t tests. The proportions of subjects within these categories were compared between sibutramine and placebo groups using Chi-square tests. All tests were two-tailed and carried out at the 5% level.
Timing of Measurements
- Height, weight (in light clothes), and BMI were recorded at screening and weight was measured every 4 weeks thereafter.
- At randomization and at 6 and 12 months, waist and hip circumference were measured and waist-to-hip ratio was calculated.
- Fasting blood samples and urine were collected at screening and then every 3 months.
Dependent Variables
- Weight in light clothes; change in body weight
- BMI
- Circumference: waist (cm); hip (cm); and waist-to-hip ratio
- Fasting glucose, HbA1c, insulin, C-peptide, triglycerides, total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol
- LDL cholesterol was calculated.
- blood pressure
- pulse rate
Independent Variables
- Placebo
- 15 mg sibutramine per day
- 20 mg sibutramine per day
Control Variables
- Factors for treatment group and country and the relevant baseline measure were used as covariates.
- Tobacco and alcohol history were recorded.
Initial N:
85 men (44%) and 109 women (56%)
64 in the placebo group, 68 in 15 mg sibutramine group, and 62 in 20 mg sibutramine group
Attrition (final N):
Intent to treat analyses was performed; therefore, the final N remained the same even after withdrawals.
Fifty subjects withdrew prematurely; 18 in the placebo group; 19 in the 15 mg sibutramine group; and, 13 in the 20 mg sibutramine group.
There were no significant group differences in reasons or numbers of withdrawals, and an imputation analysis indicated that this drop-out rate is unlikely to have influenced the outcome.
Age:
range: 27-69 years
placebo: 51±1.1 years (mean±SE)
15 mg sibutramine: 49±1.0 years
20 mg sibutramine: 48±1.0 years
Ethnicity: not given
Other relevant demographics: not given
Anthropometrics
weight (kg): placebo 110.7±2.6; 15 mg sibutramine 103.5±2.2; 20 mg sibutramine 104.3±2.9
BMI (kg/m2): placebo 36.2±0.8; 15 mg sibutramine 36.3±0.7; 20 mg sibutramine 37.5±1.0
Disease and medication information:
Duration of diabetes (years: median, range): placebo 1.8 (0.4-13); 15 mg sibutramine 2.0 (0.4-17); 20 mg sibutramine 2.0 (0-22)
Duration of metformin (years: median, range): placebo 0.6 (0.2-2.0); 15 mg sibutramine 0.6 (0.1-2.9); 20 mg sibutramine 0.6 (0.1-2.0)
Fasting plasma glucose (mmol/L): placebo 9.1 (6.2-16.2); 15 mg sibutramine 9.5 (5.7-15.4); 20 mg sibutramine 9.2 (5.7-17.1)
HbA1c (%): placebo 9.73±0.3; 15 mg sibutramine 9.75±0.3; 20 mg sibutramine 9.14±0.2
There were no significant differences between centers in sex distribution, age, diabetes duration, or the dosage (mean 1,250 mg/day) or duration of metformin treatment.
Seventy subjects (36%) were hypertensive according to World Health Organization criteria, and 56 (29%) were taking antihypertensive treatment, with 17 (9%) receiving lipid-lowering drugs.
Location:
Two centers were in the U.K. (n=28); eight were in Canada (n=116); five were in France (n=21); and, six were in Belgium (n=30).
Table 2 - Overall effects on weight and anthrometry
Variable Treatment group |
Baseline |
Change |
Dc |
95% CI for Dc |
Weight (kg) |
|
|
|
|
Placebo |
100.7 ± 2.6 |
-0.2 ± 0.5 |
- |
- |
15 mg sibutramine |
103.5 ±2.2 |
-5.5 ± 0.6*** |
-5.1 ± 0.9* |
-7.0 to -3.3 |
20 mg sibutramine |
104.3 ± 2.9 |
-8.0 ± 0.9*** |
-7.8 ± 1.0* |
-9.7 to -5.9 |
BMI (kg/m2) |
||||
Placebo |
36.2 ± 0.8 |
-0.1 ± 0.2 |
- |
- |
15 mg sibutramine |
36.3 ± 0.7 |
-2.0 ± 0.2*** |
-1.9 ± 0.3* |
-2.6 to -1.2 |
20 mg sibutramine |
37.5 ± 1.0 |
-2.9 ± 0.3*** |
-2.9 ± 0.3* |
-3.6 to -2.2 |
Circumference Waist (cm) |
||||
Placebo |
112.0 ± 2.0 |
0.2 ± 0.6 |
- |
- |
15 mg sibutramine | 113.5 ± 1.6 | -4.7 ± 0.7*** |
-4.9 ± 0.9* |
-6.7 to -3.0 |
20 mg sibutramine | 113.0 ± 1.9 |
-6.6 ± 0.7*** |
-6.8 ± 1.0* |
-8.7 to -4.9 |
Hip (cm) |
||||
Placebo | 119.4 ± 1.6 |
0.0 ± 0.7 |
- |
- |
15 mg sibutramine | 116.9 ± 1.6 |
-3.0 ± 0.6*** |
-3.0 ± 1.0* |
-5.0 to -1.0 |
20 mg sibutramine |
119.1 ± 2.1 |
-6.1 ± 1.0** |
-6.1 ± 1.0* |
-8.2 to - 4.1 |
Waist to hip ratio | ||||
Placebo |
93.9 ± 1.2 | -0.3 ± 0.7 |
- |
- |
15 mg sibutramine
|
97.5 ± 1.2 |
-1.6 ± 0.6** |
-1.4 ± 0.9 |
-3.1 to 0.3 |
20 mg sibutramine |
95.3 ± 1.2 |
-1.1 ± 0.7 |
-0.9 ± 0.9 |
-2.6 to 0.8 |
Data are means ± SE or medians (range). Dc, treatment group difference (i.e., sibutramine minus placebo). *P<0.001, **P<0.01, *** (rev: no P-value was given)
Table 3 - Overall effects on metabolic measures
Variable Treatment group |
Baseline |
Change |
Dc |
95% CI for Dc |
Fasting glucose (mmol/L) |
|
|
|
|
Placebo |
9.1 (6.2-16.2) |
0.2 (-6.8 to 9.3) |
- |
- |
15 mg sibutramine |
9.5 (5.7-15.4) |
-0.3 (-6.3 to 8.5) |
-0.2 |
-1.0 to 0.7 |
20 mg sibutramine |
9.2 (5.7-17.1) | -0.1 (-5.7 to 7.7) | -0.2 | -1.0 to 0.5 |
HbA1c (%) | ||||
Placebo | 9.73 ± 0.27 | -0.22 ± 0.24 | - | - |
15 mg sibutramine | 9.75 ± 0.26 | -0.56 ± 0.27 | -0.34 to 0.33 | -0.99 to 0.31 |
20 mg sibutramine | 9.14 ± 0.24 | -0.32 ± 0.23 | -0.10 to 0.34 | -0.76 to 0.57 |
Fasting insulin (pmol/L) | ||||
Placebo | 108.0 (30-402) | -3.0 (-210 to 228) | - | - |
15 mg sibutramine | 114.0 (30-372) | -7.2 (-168 to 246) | -6.0 | -24.0 to 12.0 |
20 mg sibutramine | 96.0 (30-540) | -33.0 (-492 to 84) | -18.0* | -30.0 to 0.0 |
Cholesterol (mmol/L) | ||||
Placebo | 5.8 (3.5-7.3) | -0.2 (-1.3 to 1.4) | - | - |
15 mg sibutramine | 5.4 (3.4-7.4) | -0.1 (-2.6 to 1.1) | 0.0 | -0.2 to 0.3 |
20 mg sibutramine | 5.5 (2.8-8.0) | 0.0 (-1.6 to 1.3) | 0.1 | -0.1 to 0.3 |
HDL | ||||
Placebo | 1.1 (0.6-5.7) | 0.0 (-4.9 to 0.3) | - | - |
15 mg sibutramine | 1.0 (0.3-2.3) | 0.1 (-1.4 to 0.6)* | 0.1 | 0.0 to 0.2 |
20 mg sibutramine | 1.1 (0.7-2.3) | 0.1 (-0.8 to 0.7)** | 0.1 | 0.0 to 0.1 |
LDL | ||||
Placebo | 3.5 (1.1-5.4) | -0.2 (-1.8 to 1.2) | - | - |
15 mg sibutramine | 3.2 (0.6-5.2) | -0.2 (-2.1 to 0.9) | 0.0 | -0.2 to 0.3 |
20 mg sibutramine | 3.2 (1.1-5.8) | -0.1 (-1.2 to 1.1) | 0.1 | -0.1 to 0.3 |
Total cholesterol-to-HDL cholesterol ratio | ||||
Placebo | 5.0 (1.1-10.2) | 0.0 (-1.8 to 7.1) | - | - |
15 mg sibutramine | 5.8 (2.8-13.3) | -0.3 (-3.3 to 13.5) | -0.5*** | -0.9 to -0.2 |
20 mg sibutramine | 4.8 (2.2-7.9) | -0.5 (-8.5 to 2.8) | -0.2 | -0.5 to 0.1 |
Triglycerides (mmol/L) | ||||
Placebo | 2.4 (0.6-5.7) | 0.1 (-1.8 to 3.4) | - | - |
15 mg sibutramine | 2.4 (0.6-7.2) | -0.2 (-3.3 to 3.4) | -0.2 | -0.6 to 0.1 |
20 mg sibutramine | 2.2 (0.6-4.2) | -0.2 (-1.7 to 6.3)** | -0.3** | -0.6 to 0.0 |
Data are means ± SE or median (range). Dc, treatment group difference (i.e., sibutramine minus placebo). *P<0.001, **P<0.05, ***P<0.01.
Table 4 - Overall cardiovascular effects (seated vital signs)
Variable Treatment group |
Baseline |
Change |
Dc |
95% CI for Dc |
Systolic blood pressure (mmHg) |
|
|
|
|
Placebo |
132.9 ± 1.9 |
-0.2 ± 2.0 |
|
|
15 mg sibutramine |
131.5 ± 2.1 |
4.4 ± 1.9* |
4.6 ± 2.2** |
0.3 to 8.8 |
20 mg sibutramine |
130.5 ± 2.0 | -1.5 ± 2.0 | -1.3 ± 2.2 | -5.6 to 3.1 |
Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg) | ||||
Placebo | 82.1 ± 1.1 | 0.5 ± 1.1 | ||
15 mg sibutramine | 82.8 ± 1.2 | 3.3 ± 1.1** | 2.8 ± 1.2** | 0.4 to 5.3 |
20 mg sibutramine | 81.3 ± 1.2 | 0.4 ± 1.0 | 0.0 ± 1.3 | -2.5 to 2.4 |
Pulse (bpm) | ||||
Placebo | 74.8 ± 1.0 | -0.8 ± 1.2 | ||
15 mg sibutramine | 76.4 ± 1.3 | 5.1 ± 1.5* | 5.9 ± 1.7* | 2.5 to 9.4 |
20 mg sibutramine | 75.0 ± 1.2 | 5.0 ± 1.4*** | 5.8 ± 1.8*** | 2.3 to 9.3 |
Data are means ± SE or median (range). Dc, treatment group difference (i.e., sibutramine minus placebo). *P<0.001, **P<0.05, ***P<0.01.
Other Findings
- Placebo-treated patients showed no consistent weight change at any time; 88% of subjects (56 of 63) either gained weight or lost <5%, whereas only 12% lost >/=5%, and none lost >/=10%.
- With 15 mg sibutramine, average weight fell steadily over 6 months to 5.3 kg (~6%) below baseline and was then maintained throughout treatment.
- The 20-mg dose caused consistently greater weight loss, averaging 8 kg (~8%) below baseline from 8 months to the end of treatment.
- Significantly more sibutramine-treated subjects lost >/=5% weight (46 and 65% with 15 and 20 mg, respectively), whereas 14% of subjects receiving 15 mg/day and 27% of subjects taking 20 mg lost >/= 10%.
- Overall, HbA1c concentrations did not change significantly among the treatment groups, but it fell significantly (0.7 ± 0.3%, P<0.02) in subjects who lost 5-10% of weight and significantly further (1.2 ± 0.4%, P<0.0001) in those losing >/= 10%.
- Among sibutramine-treated patients, percentage weight loss was significantly correlated with the fall in HbA1c (r=0.43, P<0.001, for the 15-mg group and r=0.32, P<0.02, for the 20-mg group), but no correlation was seen in the placebo group, where average weight was unchanged (r=0.5, P=0.73).
- Fall in HbA1c correlated significantly with percentage reduction in waist circumference in both sibutramine treatment groups (15 mg: r=0.43, P<0.001; 20 mg: r=0.30, P<0.05) and with placebo (r=0.51, P<0.001).
- Fasting plasma glucose decreased significantly by 1.8 mmol/L (P<0.001) in patients (sibutramine-treated only) who lost >/=10%.
- Metformin dosage was reduced in five patients (7%) receiving 15 mg sibutramine and in six patients (10%) with the 20-mg dosage, but in only one subject (2%) given placebo.
- In sibutramine subjects who lost >/=5 or >/=10% weight, total cholesterol-to-HDL cholesterol also showed modest but significant falls of 8% (P=0.011) and 16% (P=0.002), respectively.
- In subjects losing >/=5 and >/=10% weight, triglycerides fell significantly by 0.3 mmol/L (13%, P<0.01) and 0.8 mmol/L (29%, P<0.01), respectively.
- A few sibutramine-treated patients showed marked pressure rises, but systolic and diastolic blood pressure also rose in some placebo-treated pateints, being higher at completion than at baseline in over 40% of cases.
- Blood pressure rises during sibutramine treatment were more apparent when measured sitting; standing systolic pressure showed no consistent group differences.
- For a diastolic blood pressure rise of >/= mmHg, the corresponding figures were 43% with 15 mg sibutramine (P<0.05 vs placebo), 26% with 20 mg sibutramine (NS vs placebo), and 25% with placebo.
- With 15 mg sibutramine, systolic blood pressure did not change significantly in subjects who lost >/=5 or >/=10% weight, whereas the >/= 5% responders with 20 mg sibutramine showed a mean placebo-subtracted fall of 4.6 ± 2.0 mm Hg (P=0.053 vs all placebo subjects).
- Placebo-treated subjects who lost >/=5% weight showed a systolic decrease of 3.3 ± 1.4 mmHg.
- For >5% weight loss, mean placebo-subtracted diastolic changes were 2.0 ± 1.5 with 15 mg sibutramine (NS vs placebo, 1.5 ± 1.0 mmHg) and -0.9 ± 1.4 mmHg (NS vs placebo) for 20 mg sibutramine.
- For >10% weight loss, mean placebo-subtracted changes were 1.7 ± 2.2 and 1.0 ± 1.8 mmHg, respectively (both NS vs placebo).
Government: | Scottish Executive Dept. of Health |
Quality Criteria Checklist: Primary Research
|
|||
Relevance Questions | |||
1. | Would implementing the studied intervention or procedure (if found successful) result in improved outcomes for the patients/clients/population group? (Not Applicable for some epidemiological studies) | Yes | |
1. | Would implementing the studied intervention or procedure (if found successful) result in improved outcomes for the patients/clients/population group? (Not Applicable for some epidemiological studies) | Yes | |
2. | Did the authors study an outcome (dependent variable) or topic that the patients/clients/population group would care about? | Yes | |
2. | Did the authors study an outcome (dependent variable) or topic that the patients/clients/population group would care about? | Yes | |
3. | Is the focus of the intervention or procedure (independent variable) or topic of study a common issue of concern to dieteticspractice? | Yes | |
3. | Is the focus of the intervention or procedure (independent variable) or topic of study a common issue of concern to dieteticspractice? | Yes | |
4. | Is the intervention or procedure feasible? (NA for some epidemiological studies) | Yes | |
4. | Is the intervention or procedure feasible? (NA for some epidemiological studies) | Yes | |
Validity Questions | |||
1. | Was the research question clearly stated? | Yes | |
1. | Was the research question clearly stated? | Yes | |
1.1. | Was (were) the specific intervention(s) or procedure(s) [independent variable(s)] identified? | Yes | |
1.1. | Was (were) the specific intervention(s) or procedure(s) [independent variable(s)] identified? | Yes | |
1.2. | Was (were) the outcome(s) [dependent variable(s)] clearly indicated? | Yes | |
1.2. | Was (were) the outcome(s) [dependent variable(s)] clearly indicated? | Yes | |
1.3. | Were the target population and setting specified? | Yes | |
1.3. | Were the target population and setting specified? | Yes | |
2. | Was the selection of study subjects/patients free from bias? | Yes | |
2. | Was the selection of study subjects/patients free from bias? | Yes | |
2.1. | Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified (e.g., risk, point in disease progression, diagnostic or prognosis criteria), and with sufficient detail and without omitting criteria critical to the study? | Yes | |
2.1. | Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified (e.g., risk, point in disease progression, diagnostic or prognosis criteria), and with sufficient detail and without omitting criteria critical to the study? | Yes | |
2.2. | Were criteria applied equally to all study groups? | Yes | |
2.2. | Were criteria applied equally to all study groups? | Yes | |
2.3. | Were health, demographics, and other characteristics of subjects described? | Yes | |
2.3. | Were health, demographics, and other characteristics of subjects described? | Yes | |
2.4. | Were the subjects/patients a representative sample of the relevant population? | ??? | |
2.4. | Were the subjects/patients a representative sample of the relevant population? | ??? | |
3. | Were study groups comparable? | Yes | |
3. | Were study groups comparable? | Yes | |
3.1. | Was the method of assigning subjects/patients to groups described and unbiased? (Method of randomization identified if RCT) | Yes | |
3.1. | Was the method of assigning subjects/patients to groups described and unbiased? (Method of randomization identified if RCT) | Yes | |
3.2. | Were distribution of disease status, prognostic factors, and other factors (e.g., demographics) similar across study groups at baseline? | Yes | |
3.2. | Were distribution of disease status, prognostic factors, and other factors (e.g., demographics) similar across study groups at baseline? | Yes | |
3.3. | Were concurrent controls or comparisons used? (Concurrent preferred over historical control or comparison groups.) | Yes | |
3.3. | Were concurrent controls or comparisons used? (Concurrent preferred over historical control or comparison groups.) | Yes | |
3.4. | If cohort study or cross-sectional study, were groups comparable on important confounding factors and/or were preexisting differences accounted for by using appropriate adjustments in statistical analysis? | N/A | |
3.4. | If cohort study or cross-sectional study, were groups comparable on important confounding factors and/or were preexisting differences accounted for by using appropriate adjustments in statistical analysis? | N/A | |
3.5. | If case control study, were potential confounding factors comparable for cases and controls? (If case series or trial with subjects serving as own control, this criterion is not applicable.) | N/A | |
3.5. | If case control study, were potential confounding factors comparable for cases and controls? (If case series or trial with subjects serving as own control, this criterion is not applicable.) | N/A | |
3.6. | If diagnostic test, was there an independent blind comparison with an appropriate reference standard (e.g., "gold standard")? | N/A | |
3.6. | If diagnostic test, was there an independent blind comparison with an appropriate reference standard (e.g., "gold standard")? | N/A | |
4. | Was method of handling withdrawals described? | Yes | |
4. | Was method of handling withdrawals described? | Yes | |
4.1. | Were follow-up methods described and the same for all groups? | Yes | |
4.1. | Were follow-up methods described and the same for all groups? | Yes | |
4.2. | Was the number, characteristics of withdrawals (i.e., dropouts, lost to follow up, attrition rate) and/or response rate (cross-sectional studies) described for each group? (Follow up goal for a strong study is 80%.) | Yes | |
4.2. | Was the number, characteristics of withdrawals (i.e., dropouts, lost to follow up, attrition rate) and/or response rate (cross-sectional studies) described for each group? (Follow up goal for a strong study is 80%.) | Yes | |
4.3. | Were all enrolled subjects/patients (in the original sample) accounted for? | Yes | |
4.3. | Were all enrolled subjects/patients (in the original sample) accounted for? | Yes | |
4.4. | Were reasons for withdrawals similar across groups? | Yes | |
4.4. | Were reasons for withdrawals similar across groups? | Yes | |
4.5. | If diagnostic test, was decision to perform reference test not dependent on results of test under study? | N/A | |
4.5. | If diagnostic test, was decision to perform reference test not dependent on results of test under study? | N/A | |
5. | Was blinding used to prevent introduction of bias? | Yes | |
5. | Was blinding used to prevent introduction of bias? | Yes | |
5.1. | In intervention study, were subjects, clinicians/practitioners, and investigators blinded to treatment group, as appropriate? | Yes | |
5.1. | In intervention study, were subjects, clinicians/practitioners, and investigators blinded to treatment group, as appropriate? | Yes | |
5.2. | Were data collectors blinded for outcomes assessment? (If outcome is measured using an objective test, such as a lab value, this criterion is assumed to be met.) | Yes | |
5.2. | Were data collectors blinded for outcomes assessment? (If outcome is measured using an objective test, such as a lab value, this criterion is assumed to be met.) | Yes | |
5.3. | In cohort study or cross-sectional study, were measurements of outcomes and risk factors blinded? | N/A | |
5.3. | In cohort study or cross-sectional study, were measurements of outcomes and risk factors blinded? | N/A | |
5.4. | In case control study, was case definition explicit and case ascertainment not influenced by exposure status? | N/A | |
5.4. | In case control study, was case definition explicit and case ascertainment not influenced by exposure status? | N/A | |
5.5. | In diagnostic study, were test results blinded to patient history and other test results? | N/A | |
5.5. | In diagnostic study, were test results blinded to patient history and other test results? | N/A | |
6. | Were intervention/therapeutic regimens/exposure factor or procedure and any comparison(s) described in detail? Were interveningfactors described? | Yes | |
6. | Were intervention/therapeutic regimens/exposure factor or procedure and any comparison(s) described in detail? Were interveningfactors described? | Yes | |
6.1. | In RCT or other intervention trial, were protocols described for all regimens studied? | Yes | |
6.1. | In RCT or other intervention trial, were protocols described for all regimens studied? | Yes | |
6.2. | In observational study, were interventions, study settings, and clinicians/provider described? | N/A | |
6.2. | In observational study, were interventions, study settings, and clinicians/provider described? | N/A | |
6.3. | Was the intensity and duration of the intervention or exposure factor sufficient to produce a meaningful effect? | Yes | |
6.3. | Was the intensity and duration of the intervention or exposure factor sufficient to produce a meaningful effect? | Yes | |
6.4. | Was the amount of exposure and, if relevant, subject/patient compliance measured? | Yes | |
6.4. | Was the amount of exposure and, if relevant, subject/patient compliance measured? | Yes | |
6.5. | Were co-interventions (e.g., ancillary treatments, other therapies) described? | N/A | |
6.5. | Were co-interventions (e.g., ancillary treatments, other therapies) described? | N/A | |
6.6. | Were extra or unplanned treatments described? | N/A | |
6.6. | Were extra or unplanned treatments described? | N/A | |
6.7. | Was the information for 6.4, 6.5, and 6.6 assessed the same way for all groups? | Yes | |
6.7. | Was the information for 6.4, 6.5, and 6.6 assessed the same way for all groups? | Yes | |
6.8. | In diagnostic study, were details of test administration and replication sufficient? | N/A | |
6.8. | In diagnostic study, were details of test administration and replication sufficient? | N/A | |
7. | Were outcomes clearly defined and the measurements valid and reliable? | Yes | |
7. | Were outcomes clearly defined and the measurements valid and reliable? | Yes | |
7.1. | Were primary and secondary endpoints described and relevant to the question? | Yes | |
7.1. | Were primary and secondary endpoints described and relevant to the question? | Yes | |
7.2. | Were nutrition measures appropriate to question and outcomes of concern? | Yes | |
7.2. | Were nutrition measures appropriate to question and outcomes of concern? | Yes | |
7.3. | Was the period of follow-up long enough for important outcome(s) to occur? | Yes | |
7.3. | Was the period of follow-up long enough for important outcome(s) to occur? | Yes | |
7.4. | Were the observations and measurements based on standard, valid, and reliable data collection instruments/tests/procedures? | Yes | |
7.4. | Were the observations and measurements based on standard, valid, and reliable data collection instruments/tests/procedures? | Yes | |
7.5. | Was the measurement of effect at an appropriate level of precision? | Yes | |
7.5. | Was the measurement of effect at an appropriate level of precision? | Yes | |
7.6. | Were other factors accounted for (measured) that could affect outcomes? | Yes | |
7.6. | Were other factors accounted for (measured) that could affect outcomes? | Yes | |
7.7. | Were the measurements conducted consistently across groups? | Yes | |
7.7. | Were the measurements conducted consistently across groups? | Yes | |
8. | Was the statistical analysis appropriate for the study design and type of outcome indicators? | Yes | |
8. | Was the statistical analysis appropriate for the study design and type of outcome indicators? | Yes | |
8.1. | Were statistical analyses adequately described and the results reported appropriately? | Yes | |
8.1. | Were statistical analyses adequately described and the results reported appropriately? | Yes | |
8.2. | Were correct statistical tests used and assumptions of test not violated? | Yes | |
8.2. | Were correct statistical tests used and assumptions of test not violated? | Yes | |
8.3. | Were statistics reported with levels of significance and/or confidence intervals? | Yes | |
8.3. | Were statistics reported with levels of significance and/or confidence intervals? | Yes | |
8.4. | Was "intent to treat" analysis of outcomes done (and as appropriate, was there an analysis of outcomes for those maximally exposed or a dose-response analysis)? | Yes | |
8.4. | Was "intent to treat" analysis of outcomes done (and as appropriate, was there an analysis of outcomes for those maximally exposed or a dose-response analysis)? | Yes | |
8.5. | Were adequate adjustments made for effects of confounding factors that might have affected the outcomes (e.g., multivariate analyses)? | Yes | |
8.5. | Were adequate adjustments made for effects of confounding factors that might have affected the outcomes (e.g., multivariate analyses)? | Yes | |
8.6. | Was clinical significance as well as statistical significance reported? | Yes | |
8.6. | Was clinical significance as well as statistical significance reported? | Yes | |
8.7. | If negative findings, was a power calculation reported to address type 2 error? | N/A | |
8.7. | If negative findings, was a power calculation reported to address type 2 error? | N/A | |
9. | Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? | Yes | |
9. | Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? | Yes | |
9.1. | Is there a discussion of findings? | Yes | |
9.1. | Is there a discussion of findings? | Yes | |
9.2. | Are biases and study limitations identified and discussed? | Yes | |
9.2. | Are biases and study limitations identified and discussed? | Yes | |
10. | Is bias due to study's funding or sponsorship unlikely? | Yes | |
10. | Is bias due to study's funding or sponsorship unlikely? | Yes | |
10.1. | Were sources of funding and investigators' affiliations described? | Yes | |
10.1. | Were sources of funding and investigators' affiliations described? | Yes | |
10.2. | Was the study free from apparent conflict of interest? | Yes | |
10.2. | Was the study free from apparent conflict of interest? | Yes | |