Abstract
The study aimed to compare and rank the efficacy of various eating patterns for glycemic control, anthropometrics, and serum lipid profiles in the management of type 2 diabetes and prediabetes, and provide evidence for personalized clinical decision-making. We conducted a network meta-analysis using arm-based Bayesian methods and random effect models following the Cochrane handbook. We drew the conclusions using the partially contextualized framework by the GRADE working group. Twelve English and Chinese databases and registers were retrieved, and we obtained 9,534 references, of which 107 independent studies were eligible, including 8,909 participants, ten experimental diets, and thirteen outcome variables. The meta-analysis denoted that: caloric restriction was ranked as the best pattern for weight loss (SUCRA 86.8%) and reducing waist circumference (82.2%), high-fiber diets for lowering fasting plasma glucose (82.1%) and insulin (79.4%), Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension for reducing glycated hemoglobin (90.5%) and systolic blood pressure (87.9%), simple high-protein diets for improving insulin resistance (86.3%) and diastolic blood pressure (74.6%), low-carbohydrate diets for improving body mass index (81.6%) and high-density lipoprotein (84.0%), low-glycemic-index diets for lowering total cholesterol (87.5%) and low-density lipoprotein (86.6%), and Paleolithic diets for reducing triacylglycerol (83.4%). However, the results were of moderate sensitivity, and publication bias of glycated hemoglobin, weight, and body mass index existed. Meta-regression suggested that macronutrients, energy intake, baseline, and weight may modify outcomes differently, while the duration did not show a significant association with results. Forty-nine (39.8%) out of 123 pieces of evidence was rated as moderate quality, and there was no high-quality evidence. Additionally, only 38.2% of the effect sizes of the evidence met the minimally important clinical difference threshold. Clinicians can use the evidence to provide personalized nutrition consultations to patients according to their baseline characteristics. However, the results should be carefully explained and applied because of the sensitivity and low quality.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study used ONLY openly available human data from published works.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
zengbentuoxmu{at}outlook.com (B.-T.Z.); yezhenyu1999{at}gmail.com (Z.-Y.Y.)
phq19991011{at}126.com
18350278581{at}163.com
Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript and the supplementary materials.
