DLM-SF: Dairy Compared to Non-Dairy (2021)

Author and Year:
Drouin-Chartier J, Gigleux I, et al. 2014
PubMed ID:
Article Title:
Impact of dairy consumption on essential hypertension: a clinical study.
Authors:
Drouin-Chartier J, Gigleux I, Tremblay A, Poirier L, Lamarche B, Couture P
Journal:
Nutrition Journal
Year of publication:
2014
Volume:
13
Issue:
Page numbers:
83
Study Design:
Randomized Crossover Trial
Risk of Bias Assessment Rating:
Neutral
Inclusion Criteria:
Participants had to be aged between 18-70 years old, have mild to moderate essential hypertension (mean daytime systolic BP>/= 135 mmHg and
Exclusion Criteria:
Participants with body mass indices > 35kg/m^2, that were smokers (>1 cigarette/day), with a previous history of cardiovascular disease, with type 2 diabetes, with monogenic dyslipidemia, that are taking anti-inflammatory drugs, that had endocrine or gastrointestinal disease, that had an allergy to dairy, that were clinically using vitamin D or calcium supplements, that were vegetarians or that had any other conditions that may interfere with optimal participation in the study were ineligible.
Research Purpose:
The objective of this study was to investigate how the consumption of three daily servings of dairy products impacts the mean daytime systolic and diastolic blood pressure in men and women with mild to moderate essential hypertension. We hypothesized that consuming three servings of dairy products per day would significantly reduce the mean daytime systolic and diastolic blood pressure as measured by 24-hour ABPM. We have also examined how the consumption of three daily servings of dairy products impacts endothelial function. We hypothesized that dairy consumption would significantly improve the endothelial function as measured by digital pulse amplitude tonometry.
Blinding efforts:
Study participants and study coordinators were not blind because of the tangibility of the study food. However, investigators and laboratory staff were blinded until the final statistical analyses were conducted.
Study Location:
Quebec City
Source(s) of Funding:
Industry
Please specify names of funders:
Canadian Agri-Science Clusters Initiative, Dairy Research Cluster (Dairy Farmers of Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the Canadian Dairy Commission)
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
  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
  4. Is the intervention or procedure feasible? (NA for some epidemiological studies) Yes
 
Validity Questions
1. Was the research question clearly stated? Yes
  1.1. Was (were) the specific intervention(s) or procedure(s) [independent variable(s)] identified? Yes
  1.2. Was (were) the outcome(s) [dependent variable(s)] clearly indicated? Yes
  1.3. Were the target population and setting specified? Yes
2. Was the selection of study subjects/patients free from bias? ???
  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
  2.3. Were health, demographics, and other characteristics of subjects described? No
  2.4. Were the subjects/patients a representative sample of the relevant population? ???
3. Were study groups comparable? No
  3.1. Was the method of assigning subjects/patients to groups described and unbiased? (Method of randomization identified if RCT) No
  3.2. Were distribution of disease status, prognostic factors, and other factors (e.g., demographics) similar across study groups at baseline? No
  3.3. Were concurrent controls or comparisons used? (Concurrent preferred over historical control or comparison groups.) Yes
4. Was method of handling withdrawals described? 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
  4.3. Were all enrolled subjects/patients (in the original sample) accounted for? Yes
  4.4. Were reasons for withdrawals similar across groups? Yes
5. Was blinding used to prevent introduction of bias? No
  5.1. In intervention study, were subjects, clinicians/practitioners, and investigators blinded to treatment group, as appropriate? No
  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.) ???
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? No
  6.3. Was the intensity and duration of the intervention or exposure factor sufficient to produce a meaningful effect? ???
  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? No
  6.6. Were extra or unplanned treatments described? No
  6.7. Was the information for 6.4, 6.5, and 6.6 assessed the same way for all groups? ???
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
  7.2. 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
  7.4. 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
  7.6. Were other factors accounted for (measured) that could affect outcomes? 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
  8.1. 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
  8.3. 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)? N/A
  8.5. Were adequate adjustments made for effects of confounding factors that might have affected the outcomes (e.g., multivariate analyses)? ???
  8.6. Was clinical significance as well as statistical significance reported? No
  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? No
  9.1. Is there a discussion of findings? No
  9.2. Are biases and study limitations identified and discussed? Yes
10. Is bias due to study's funding or sponsorship unlikely? No
  10.1. Were sources of funding and investigators' affiliations described? Yes
  10.2. Was the study free from apparent conflict of interest? No
 
 

Copyright 2024 Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (Academy), All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy. LX-135-30