↓ Skip to main content

Efficacy of low-protein diet for diabetic nephropathy: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

Overview of attention for article published in Lipids in Health and Disease, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
84 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
111 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
Efficacy of low-protein diet for diabetic nephropathy: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials
Published in
Lipids in Health and Disease, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12944-018-0791-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Huan-gao Zhu, Zhao-shun Jiang, Pi-yun Gong, Dong-mei Zhang, Zhi-wei Zou, Qian-Zhang, Hui-mei Ma, Zhen-gang Guo, Jun-yu Zhao, Jian-jun Dong, Lin-Liao

Abstract

A low-protein diet (LPD) is believed to be beneficial in slowing the progression of kidney disease. It is reported that low protein diet can improve protein, sugar and lipid metabolism, and reduce the symptoms and complications of renal insufficiency. However, there has been controversial regarding the effects of protein restriction on diabetic nephropathy (DN). To investigate the efficacy of LPD on renal function in patients with type 1 or 2 DN by meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases were searched. Eleven randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria, of which 10 were English and 1 was Chinese. The primary outcome was a change in glomerular filtration rate (GFR). The secondary outcome was a change in proteinuria. Random-effects models were used to calculate the standardized mean difference (SMD) and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). Subgroup analyses were also performed. Our research indicated that LPD was not associated with a significant improvement in GFR (1.59 ml · min-1 · 1.73 m-2, 95% CI -0.57, 3.75, I2 = 76%; p = 0.15). This effect was consistent across the subgroups regardless of type of diabetes, course of diabetes and intervention period. Our results also showed that there was no significant difference on improvement of proteinuria in patients of LPD and those in normal-protein diet groups (- 0.48, 95%CI-1.70, 0.74, I2 = 94%, p = 0.44). Subgroup analysis revealed that LPD resulted in increased excretion of proteinuria in patients with type 2 diabetes (1.32, 95% CI 0.17, 2.47, I2 = 86%, p = 0.02). The present research showed that LPD was not significantly associated with improvement of renal function in patients with either type 1 or 2 diabetic nephropathy. Although these results do not completely eliminate the possibility that LPD is beneficial for patients with diabetic nephropathy, it does not seem to be significant benefit to renal function.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 84 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 111 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 18%
Student > Bachelor 13 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 9%
Other 8 7%
Student > Postgraduate 5 5%
Other 14 13%
Unknown 41 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 11 10%
Unknown 40 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 49. 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 14 November 2020.
All research outputs
#887,122
of 25,853,983 outputs
Outputs from Lipids in Health and Disease
#69
of 1,631 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,827
of 343,217 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Lipids in Health and Disease
#1
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,853,983 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,631 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
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 343,217 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.