↓ Skip to main content

Impact of different dietary approaches on glycemic control and cardiovascular risk factors in patients with type 2 diabetes: a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
200 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Impact of different dietary approaches on glycemic control and cardiovascular risk factors in patients with type 2 diabetes: a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis
Published in
Systematic Reviews, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13643-017-0455-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lukas Schwingshackl, Anna Chaimani, Georg Hoffmann, Carolina Schwedhelm, Heiner Boeing

Abstract

Dietary advice is one of the cornerstones in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus. The American Diabetes Association recommended a hypocaloric diet for overweight or obese adults with type 2 diabetes in order to induce weight loss. However, there is limited evidence on the optimal approaches to control hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes patients. The aim of the present study is to assess the comparative efficacy of different dietary approaches on glycemic control and blood lipids in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in a systematic review including a standard pairwise and network meta-analysis of randomized trials. We will conduct searches in Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) on the Cochrane Library, PubMed (from 1966), and Google Scholar. Citations, abstracts, and relevant papers will be screened for eligibility by two reviewers independently. Randomized controlled trials (with a control group or randomized trials with at least two intervention groups) will be included if they meet the following criteria: (1) include type 2 diabetes mellitus, (2) include patients aged ≥18 years, (3) include dietary intervention (different type of diets: e.g., Mediterranean dietary pattern, low-carbohydrate diet, low-fat diet, vegetarian diet, high protein diet); either hypo, iso-caloric, or ad libitum diets, (4) minimum intervention period of 12 weeks. For each outcome measure of interest, random effects pairwise and network meta-analyses will be performed in order to determine the pooled relative effect of each intervention relative to every other intervention in terms of the post-intervention values (or mean differences between the changes from baseline value scores). Subgroup analyses are planned for study length, sample size, age, and sex. This systematic review will synthesize the available evidence on the comparative efficacy of different dietary approaches in the management of glycosylated hemoglobin (primary outcome), fasting glucose, and cardiovascular risk factors in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients. The results of the present network meta-analysis will influence evidence-based treatment decisions since it will be fundamental for based recommendations in the management of type 2 diabetes. PROSPERO 42016047464.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 200 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 200 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 42 21%
Student > Master 37 19%
Researcher 20 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 5%
Other 35 18%
Unknown 45 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 59 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 48 24%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 3%
Sports and Recreations 4 2%
Other 20 10%
Unknown 52 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 January 2018.
All research outputs
#8,210,788
of 14,574,779 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#932
of 1,286 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,504
of 264,097 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#19
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,574,779 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,286 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,097 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.