Schwingshackl L, Chaimani A, et al. 2018

29302846

A network meta-analysis on the comparative efficacy of different dietary approaches on glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Schwingshackl L, Chaimani A, Hoffmann G, Schwedhelm C, Boeing H

European Journal of Epidemiology

2018

33

2

157-170

Meta-analysis or Systematic Review

Moderate risk

Randomized comparison study design between different dietary approaches (energy restricted diets, iso-caloric, or ad libitum diets): (a) Low carbohydrate diet (25% carbohydrates of total energy intake; high intake of animal and/or plant protein; often high intake of fat); Moderate-carbohydrate diet (25–45% carbohydrates of total energy intake; 10–20% protein intake); High protein diet (20% protein intake of total energy intake; high intake of animal and/or plant protein 35% fat); Low fat diet (30% fat of total energy intake; high intake of cereals & grains; 10–15% protein intake); Low glycaemic index/load diet; Vegetarian/Vegan diet (no meat and fish/noanimal products); Mediterranean dietary pattern: fruit, vegetables, olive oil, legumes, cereals, fish, and moderate intake of red wine during meals; Palaeolithic diet; Control diet: no intervention or minimal intervention; Minimum intervention 12 weeks; Patients with a mean age >/=18. primary outcome is HgbA1c or fasting glucose.

Randomized trials including pregnant women, children, and adolescents, patients with abnormal glucose metabolism; (ii) Intervention studies solely based on dietary supplements or single foods; Intervention studies using dietary supplements as placebo; Studies with an exercise/medication cointervention that was not applied in all the intervention/control groups; Interventions based on very low energy diets (i.e., \600 kcal/day).

To compare the efficacy of different dietary approaches in clinical trials on glycaemic control in patients with T2D using the novel method of NMA.

Included in Risk of Bias Assessment

Not reported

Not reported