Comparative efficacy of different eating patterns in the management of type 2 diabetes and prediabetes: An arm-based Bayesian network meta-analysis

Ben-tuo Zeng, Hui-qing Pan, Feng-dan Li, Zhen-yu Ye, Yang Liu, Ji-wei Du
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.05.30.22275766

Abstract

Aims/Introduction Diet therapy is a vital approach to manage type 2 diabetes and prediabetes. However, the comparative efficacy of different eating patterns is not clear enough. We aimed to compare the efficacy of various eating patterns for glycemic control, anthropometrics, and serum lipid profiles in the management of type 2 diabetes and prediabetes.

Materials and Methods We conducted a network meta-analysis using arm-based Bayesian methods and random effect models, and drew the conclusions using the partially contextualized framework. We searched twelve databases and yielded 9,534 related references, where 107 studies were eligible, comprising 8,909 participants.

Results Eleven diets were evaluated for fourteen outcomes. Caloric restriction was ranked as the best pattern for weight loss (SUCRA 86.8%) and waist circumference (82.2%), low-carbohydrate diets for body mass index (81.6%) and high-density lipoprotein (84.0%), and low-glycemic-index diets for total cholesterol (87.5%) and low-density lipoprotein (86.6%). Other interventions showed some superiorities, but were of imprecision due to insufficient participants and needed further investigation. The attrition rates of interventions were similar. Meta-regression suggested that macronutrients, energy intake, and weight may modify outcomes differently. The evidence was of moderate-to-low quality, and 38.2% of the evidence items met the minimal clinically important differences.

Conclusions The selection and development of dietary strategies for diabetic/prediabetic patients should depend on their holistic conditions, i.e., serum lipids profiles, glucometabolic patterns, weight and blood pressures. It is recommended to identify the most critical and urgent metabolic indicator to control for one specific patient, and then choose the most appropriate eating pattern accordingly.

1. Introduction

It was estimated that 10.5% of people aged 20-75 suffered from diabetes mellitus globally, where over 90% were type 2 diabetes (T2DM) 1. They spend about 966 billion US dollars of health expenditures per year1. Since T2DM has proven to be preventable and controllable2, the remission of a prediabetic state (PreD), or impaired glucose tolerance (IGT), was also concerned and included in the comprehensive prevention of T2DM incidence.

Beyond medications, lifestyle management is more cost-effective for T2DM/PreD patients with strong clinical evidence3-5, where eating patterns play the leading role. Various patterns of different nutrients and food groups have been investigated and applied to T2DM/PreD treatment and management, from the very high-fat diet in the 18th century6 to the pattern recommended by American Diabetes Association (ADA) in 20037. From an evidence-based perspective, hundreds of random controlled trials (RCT), cohorts, and related systematic reviews have quantified the efficacy of popular and widely-used eating patterns8-13.

However, there are variances in the effectiveness of the diets across different outcomes, e.g., blood glucose, weight, and cardiovascular risk factors. Diabetes Canada guidelines4 summarized the properties of dietary interventions, pointing out the differences among diets. Consequently, current guidelines strongly recommend an individualized medical nutrition therapy under the supervision of dietitians and multidisciplinary professionals3-5. However, how to choose and apply appropriate dietary patterns for professionals remains to be a question, due to the lack of direct evidence comparing relative efficacy of the interventions. Whether a specific diet is proper for an individual with specific laboratory profiles and situations is not clear enough, though high-quality evidence of several patterns has been drawn.

It is not cost-effective to carry out multi-arm trials directly comparing several diets. Thus, it is crucial to conduct a network meta-analysis to synthesize current evidence. Previous network meta-analyses14, 15 have assessed a number of patterns, but the authors only included a limited number of studies and outcomes. Furthermore, short-term trials were not considered in the analyses, but a short-term effect may be more common for some patterns16. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the relative efficacy of different eating patterns on glycemic control, anthropometrics and serum lipid profiles in the management of T2DM/PreD patients, and conclude evidence to promote clinical decision-making.

2. Materials & Methods

2.1. Study Design

We conducted an arm-based Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, following the Cochrane Handbook17. We reported results according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses Incorporating Network Meta-analysis (PRISMA-NMA)18. A protocol was prepared and registered a priori in PROSPERO (CRD42021278268).

2.2. Eligibility Criteria

We selected peer-reviewed articles and thesis according to the PICOS principle. Eligibility criteria are displayed in Table 1.

View this table:
Table 1.

Eligibility criteria

2.3. Search Strategy

We conducted searches of databases and trial registers, including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL and Open Dissertation, ProQuest, Scopus, Global Index Medicus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Clinicaltrials.gov, SinoMed, WanFang Med, and CNKI. All publications from the inception to 13 October 2021 were initially retrieved. An updated search was conducted on March 17, 2022 using Scopus and Google Scholar to identify the latest relevant articles. Full search strategy can be found in File S1.

2.4. Data Selection and Extraction

All references identified from the search were imported into EndNote 20 (Clarivate, PA, USA) to move duplicates. After automatic exclusion by filtering title using excluding terms, reviewers (B.-T.Z., H.-Q.P., and F.-D.L.) assessed the eligibility in the order of title, abstract and full text. Each reference was decided independently by at least two reviewers, and arisen discrepancies were discussed and decided by the authors together.

We used MySQL 8.0 (Oracle Corporation, TX, USA) for data extraction and management, and critical information was extracted (see File S2 for fields in MySQL tables). Two authors (B.-T.Z. and Z.-Y.Y.) independently extracted the data and checked the consistency. R 4.1.3 (R Foundation, Vienna, Austria) and Microsoft Excel 2019 (Microsoft Corporation, WA, USA) were used for data conversion and imputation. For continuous outcomes, we calculated the change from baseline and its standard deviation (SD) if not reported by the article. Correlation coefficients for changes from baseline and for crossover RCTs were estimated using reported SDs from included studies (File S3). Median and interquartile range was converted into mean and SD using methods from Luo19 and Wan20 after testing for skewness using methods from Shi et al.21. WebPlot Digitizer22 was applied for extracting data from figures. Ultimately, R package “mice”23 was used for the imputation of missing values of covariates for meta-regression.

2.5. Risk of Bias Assessment

The Risk of Bias 2 tool24 and Risk of Bias 2 for crossover trials25 were employed to assess the risk of bias (RoB) of parallel and crossover RCTs, respectively. Two reviewers (B.-T.Z. and H.-Q.P.) assessed the RoBs independently, with all arisen divergences discussed and reached consensuses.

2.6. Data Synthesis

Our study synthesized evidence through an arm-based Bayesian network meta-analysis in a random effect model. We use R package “gemtc” 1.0-1 for meta-analysis, inconsistency test, heterogeneity test, meta-regression, and sensitivity analysis26, 27. Markov chain Monte Carlo sampling was performed using JAGS 4.3.0 via R package “rjags” 4.1228, 29. Comparison-adjusted funnel plots, Egger’s test, and Begg’s test were performed to detect publication bias under a frequentist framework and random effect model using R package “netmeta” 2.1-0 and “metafor” 3.4-030, 31.

Continuous outcomes were presented as mean difference (MD) or difference in percentage change from baseline (Percentage MD, PMD, for fasting insulin and insulin resistance) and 95% credible intervals (95% CrI), while relative risk (RR) and 95% CrI were for dichotomous variables.

2.7. Quality of the Evidence

We rated the quality of evidence of comparisons of experimental diets and control diets based on the GRADE Working Group’s network meta-analysis evidence rating strategies32 and the GRADE handbook33. Conclusions were drawn according to the partially contextualized framework by the GRADE workgroup34, where minimal clinically important differences (MCID) and thresholds for moderate and large beneficial/harm effects were identified based on previous studies13, 35-37 and consensuses among reviewers.

3. Results

We identified 9,358 publications and registrations from the initial search, and 176 from the updated search. 111 publications38-148 were eligible, where 107 independent studies were identified (Figure 1). All items excluded via full-text screening and their reason for exclusion were listed in File S4.

Figure 1.
Figure 1.

PRISMA flowchart of data selection

Among our prescribed outcomes, data of FPG, HbA1c, FIns, IR, weight, BMI, WC, SBP, DBP, TG, TC, HDL, LDL, and attrition rate were sufficient to form networks and perform a meta-analysis. However, other outcomes were not analyzed due to scarce data.

3.1. Study characteristics

The 107 included studies contained 8,909 participants for data analysis and 8,583 completers. A total of ten experimental diets and 223 arms was reported. The studies reported efficacy of CR, DASH, fiber, HFD, HPD, LCD, LGID, Med, Paleo, and VD, but ND and PfD were not included.

Characteristics of the studies are displayed in Table 2. We included 16 crossover and 91 parallel RCTs. Among them, seven were multi-arm, and six were multicenter. Four studies reported their outcomes in two or more publications. Only five studies focused on PreD population; considering that there was not significant difference among PreD and T2DM RCTs, we did not distinguish them in the meta-analysis. Fundings and conflicts of interest of the studies are listed in File S5.

View this table:
Table 2.

Characteristics of included studies

3.2. Risk of Bias Assessment

The overall risk of bias of eligible studies was acceptable, but trials of some patterns (fiber and DASH) had a relatively high risk of bias (Table 2). 15.9% of studies were at high risk of bias (Figure 2). Notably, the risk of bias of crossover RCTs was significantly higher than the parallel (P0.05/2=0.006, Mann-Whitney test), due to the period and carryover effects. Detailed risk of bias ratings of each domain are displayed in File S6.

Figure 2.
Figure 2.

Risk of bias of included studies. a The “period and carryover effects” domain was only for crossover RCTs (n = 16), and other domains were for all included studies (n = 107).

3.3. Main Outcomes

The number of nodes and comparisons varied among outcomes (Figure 3 and File S7). File S8 presented all league tables and cumulative ranking curves; File S9 showed forest plots with heterogeneity and inconsistency tests of all outcomes.

Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.

Efficacy of different eating patterns on glycemic control, anthropometrics, serum lipid profiles, and comparative attrition rate. I, intervention arm; C, control arm; No., Number of direct comparisons; Incons., P value of inconsistency test (node-splitting method); MD, mean difference; PMD, difference in percentage change from baseline; FPG, fasting plasma glucose; HbA1c, glycated hemoglobin; FIns, fasting insulin; IR, insulin resistance; BMI, body mass index; WC, waist circumference; SBP, systolic blood pressure; DBP, diastolic blood pressure; TG, triacylglycerol; TC, total cholesterol; LDL, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; HDL, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Thick dashed referred to the null value, and thin dashed referred to the MCID threshold. Unless otherwise specified using “vs”, the effect sizes were experimental patterns vs control. I2 values were for network heterogeneity, including both direct and indirect comparisons.

3.3.1. Glycemic Control

For glycemic control, high-fiber diet (fiber) was ranked as the best pattern for reducing FPG (MD -1.3 mmol/L, 95% CrI -2.3 to -0.22, SUCRA 82.7%) (Figure 3A). DASH (−1.2%, -2.2 to -0.23, SUCRA 90.5%) and LGID (−0.71%, -0.93 to -0.49, SUCRA 76.2%) had the highest probability of improving HbA1c compared with control groups (Figure 3B). The effects on reducing FPG and HbA1c were comparable.

FIns and IR were presented as PMD due to the various units reported by studies. Effects on improving insulin-related conditions were not stable and significant because of the limited sample size. High-fiber diets achieved a mean of 21% Fins reduction (95% CrI 5.2% to 46%) with a probability of 79.4% to be the best pattern (Figure 3C). IR was reported as homeostatic model assessment (HOMA)1-IR and HOMA2-IR, among which HPD showed the best beneficial effects on improving IR (−22%, -37% to -7.0%, SUCRA 86.3%) (Figure 3D).

3.3.2. Anthropometrics

CR was still one of the most effective diet patterns for weight loss (−4.1 kg, -6.1 to -2.0, SUCRA 86.8%) and WC (−4.5 cm, -7.4 to -1.8, SUCRA 82.2%), and LCD was ranked as the second (−3.0 kg, -4.3 to -1.8, SUCRA 74.3%) for weight loss and the best (−1.2 kg/m2, -1.7 to -0.74, SUCRA 81.6%) for BMI reduction (Figure 3E-G).

As for blood pressure, DASH was found to be the best pattern for lowering SBP (−7.6 mmHg, -15 to -0.29, SUCRA 87.9%) and the second for DBP (−3.7 mmHg, -10 to 2.8, SUCRA 73.7%), while HPD was the most effective for DBP (−3.0 mmHg, -5.9 to -0.068, SUCRA 74.6%) with slight superiority to DASH (Figure 3I-J).

3.3.3. Lipid Profiles

Figure 3K-N illustrated different interventions’ effects on lipid profiles comparing with control groups. LGID showed the most remarkable efficacy for lowering TC (−0.46 mmol/L, -0.62 to -0.30,

SUCRA 87.5%) and LDL (−0.35 mmol/L, -0.47 to -0.24, SUCRA 86.6%), but were not of beneficial effects on HDL. Paleo was ranked as the best pattern for improving TG (−0.50 mmol/L, -1.1 to 0.13, SUCRA 83.4%), though the outcome was not statistically significant. LCD led to an average increase of 0.12 mmol/L (95% CrI 0.073 to 0.17, SUCRA 84.0%) for HDL compared to control, thus being the best intervention with a small effect size.

3.3.4. Attrition

Since a considerable number of studies did not report standardized flowcharts of follow-up, we only included trials that reported a loss in at least one arm into synthesis. An attrition rate was calculated as: the attrition number divided by the product of participant number when allocation and the duration of intervention. The meta-analysis did not find significant difference among all patterns (Figure 3H; File S8), suggesting that participants’ tolerance for each diet be similar.

3.4. Heterogeneity and Inconsistency Test

Generally, the included interventions were of moderate to high heterogeneity (Figure 3, File S9, and File S10), making the results less confident. LCD-control, CR-control, LGID-control, LCD-CR, and LGID-LCD pairs were of high heterogeneity in either direct or network comparison, while Med-control and HPD-control were with mild heterogeneity in lipid profiles. Significant inconsistency was observed in LCD-CR for FPG, and CR-LCD-control loop for weight and LDL using node-splitting methods. The evidence of CR, LCD and LGID showed severe incoherence and inconsistency and should be interpreted prudently.

3.5. Meta-regression

A random effect meta-regression model with one covariate and exchangeable coefficients was fitted for continuous outcomes. The significance of coefficients was summarized in File S11. Universally, the meta-regression denoted that weight, BMI, and macronutrient intake significantly modified the efficacy of interventions of most outcomes. On the contrary, coefficients of length, study design, medication or insulin treatment, duration of disease, and sex ratio were not significant, implying that these factors may not contribute to the effectiveness. Another notable finding that coefficients of sample size and origin (from China or not) showed significance in FPG, weight, and lipid profiles indicated potential publication or selection biases.

3.6. Sensitivity Analysis

Effect of Weight, BMI, and TC showed robustness, but other outcomes were not robust enough (File S12). The exclusion of several articles51, 61, 67, 97, 98, 101, 126, 134, 135, 140, 145 significantly changed the SUCRA and the 95% CrI of effect size, mainly in comparisons of CR, LCD, and Med vs. control, contributing to the severe heterogeneity. When testing for different models, i.e., fixed effect or unrelated study effect models, Med, HPD, and VD showed narrower 95% CrIs and became statistically significant for more outcome variables (see File S12). The analysis did not observe the sensitivity of relative effect and between-study heterogeneity priors, and correlation coefficients.

3.7. Publication Bias

Potential publication bias of HbA1c, weight and BMI existed (Egger’s test P = 0.002; < 0.001; and < 0.001, respectively). P values for all outcomes and comparison-adjusted funnel plots were listed in File S13.

3.8. Quality of Evidence

All MCIDs and thresholds were identified (see File S14, Figure 3, and Table 3). Of all 123 pieces of evidence comparing interventions and control groups, 49 were of moderate quality, and there was no high-quality evidence (Table 3). At the clinical level, all patterns were not significantly worse than control diets for each outcome, but most did not show moderate to large beneficial effects. All the quality of evidence should be downgraded when applying to PreD due to the indirectness, because PreD-related trials were limited.

View this table:
Table 3.

Summary of findings

4. Discussion

This review evaluated the comparative efficacy of ten experimental diets, and the results can provide guidance for diet selection of one specific patients. To manage patients with comorbidities and different levels of glycemic control, we concluded a dietary suggestion table derived from the evidence from the meta-analysis (Table 4). However, this table should be applied prudently because the evidence was not solid enough.

View this table:
Table 4.

Dietary suggestions for patients with different profiles

4.1. Quantity of Macronutrients

A previous evidence basis has corroborated the efficacy of CR in weight loss, BMI and WC in patients with metabolic diseases or healthy individuals149, 150. However, CR did not lead to greater improvement of glycemic control, blood pressure, TG, and TC compared to standard diets. Trivial effects on these outcomes may result from weight loss but not the caloric restriction151, 152. The median TEI of the included CR arms was 1594 kcal/d, with a 150-to-400-kcal negative difference compared to standard diets, significantly slighter than the prescribed (−500 kcal/d). However, the deviance did not lead to the failure of trials. The phenomena were also observed in LCD and LGID.

Carbohydrate restriction acted well in weight, HbA1c, TG, and HDL, where improving HDL was the unique advantage of LCD. Nevertheless, other types of serum lipids, i.e., TC and LDL were not improved. The 75th percentile of carbohydrate intake of the included LCD arms was 40%, indicating that nearly a quarter of included trials did not meet the low-carbohydrate criteria as prescribed. Nevertheless, the effect size was similar to previous systematic reviews13, and the strict following of the instruction as well as a more intensive intervention did not enhance the effects but may even lead to a decrease (File S11).

Increased protein intake without carbohydrate restriction (HPD) effectively improved IR, blood pressure and TG. Compared to other review153, the effectiveness of HPD on FPG, HbA1c and other lipids was not observed, mainly due to the different inclusion criteria: only HPD with protein intake of more than 30% TEI and without carbohydrate restriction was included. This implied the different efficacy of protein and carbohydrate.

As for HFD, no beneficial effect was detected, and fat intake negatively modified the lipid improvement. Despite the numerical impact on specific lipids, it remained to be evaluated whether specific types of fat improved or negatively affected the overall lipoprotein profile154. Unfortunately, the included trials did not provide sufficient data to draw a thorough interpretation.

4.2. Quality of Carbohydrates

LGID and high-fiber diets emphasized more on the quality of carbohydrates. Effects of LGID and high-fiber diets were similar: both showed more excellent effects on FPG, HbA1c, FIns, TC, and LDL than other patterns, but did not significantly improve weight-related outcomes, consistent with other studies155, 156. Dietary GI and fiber of specific single food were not well-associated157. However, the emphasis on lowering GI may encourage participants to increase fiber intake, because the usually recommended food groups can be both low in GI and high in fiber, e.g., whole grains and nuts.

A recent high-quality meta-analysis has also denoted that dietary fiber and low-GI food were associated with a lower risk of T2DM incidence, where fiber may be a stronger protector158. Rather than a severe long-term restriction of carbohydrate intake which leads to higher all-cause mortality159, LGID and increased fiber intake can be better and sustainable approaches for T2DM patients without obesity/overweight, especially with the circumstance that most people lacked fiber intake160.

4.3. Mediterranean Diets

Even if previous cohort studies and RCTs have demonstrated the efficacy of Med in T2DM management161, our study failed to detect a significant improvement driven by Med. Except for HbA1c, IR and TG, all other outcomes were of great imprecision and trivial effects. The effect size was also more trivial than other meta-analyses14, 162. Small sample size compared to other interventions could be the reason when using random effects models; different calculation of effect size, i.e., MD of change from baseline or of endpoint may explain the numerical differences.

Moreover, heterogeneity was detected for almost all outcomes of Med-control comparisons, where the variance and bias of the definition of Med in different trials163 can be a significant reason. Though several scales have been developed to measure the adherence to Med (e.g., MedDiet Score)164, few trials employed it, making this problem difficult to address.

4.4. Vegan, Vegetarian, or Plant-based Diets

VD did not show any significant beneficial effects in our study. The mean differences of VD were similar to the previous studies36, thus not affecting the conclusion but lowering the quality of evidence. While using fixed effect models, the effectiveness of VD on BMI, WC, and HbA1c was detected, but moderate heterogeneity made it unreasonable to employ fixed effect models.

Notably, the carbohydrate intake in VD trials was relatively high (mean 65.8%TEI). The sensitivity analysis also showed a slight improvement of SUCRA in TG after omitting Lee 201691, which contained about 72%TEI of carbohydrate in VD arms. Researchers should consider a lower carbohydrate intake when conducting VD, and the effects would promise to be more significant.

4.5. Newly-developed diets

Evidence of the efficacy of DASH and Paleo was limited and of low quality due to the sample size, and further investigation is needed. As one of the recommended healthy patterns by Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA 2020-2025)165, many studies have addressed DASH’s benefit in blood pressure and glycemic control166, 167. However, related RCTs specially for T2DM/PreD patients were rare. Included studies also outlined the beneficial effects of DASH on blood pressure, TC, LDL, and HbA1c, and DASH was the most effective intervention for HbA1c with a high probability (90.5%). As for Paleolithic diets, Tommy Jönsson and his colleagues quantified the improvement of leptin and introduced a scale (Paleolithic Diet Fraction) to measure the compliance, based on their trial87, 168, providing a basis for further studying.

4.6. Limitations

This study had several limitations. First, the heterogeneity and sensitivity lowered the quality of evidence. Second, the sample size of VD, DASH, and Paleo was limited, leading to the imprecision. Third, only five PreD trials were included, raising the indirectness of the evidence for PreD population. Moreover, there was not an adequate method to compare the longitudinal dataset of different patterns, though the data of different timepoints have been extracted.

In conclusion, Energy, carbohydrate, and dietary glycemic index (GI) restriction, as well as dietary fiber intake, were the most effective approaches with solid and abundant evidence bases. Simultaneously, DASH, Paleolithic diets, and HPD were of satisfactory efficacy in limited outcomes and worth investigation. Mediterranean diets, VD and HFD did not act well in most outcomes, mainly due to the imprecision. Heterogeneity and sensitivity should be concerned when interpreting results.

This work may eliminate some barriers on how to choose the best diet on an individualized basis. Clinicians and dietitians can choose the most important outcome that in an urgent need to control for a patient to match the most appropriate dietary pattern, according to the summary of finding table and the dietary suggestion table of this review.

Data Availability

All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript and the supplementary materials.

Disclosure of Ethical Statements

Approval of the research protocol: N/A. Informed consent: N/A.

Registry and the registration no. of the study/trial: This network meta-analysis was registered at https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO as CRD42021278268.

Animal studies: N/A.

Disclosure Statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Supporting Information Legends

File S1. Full search strategy

File S2. Data extraction template

File S3. Correlation coefficients for estimation

File S4. Reason for exclusion

File S5. Fundings and conflicts of interest of included studies

File S6. Risk of bias assessment

File S7. Network plots

File S8. League tables and cumulative ranking curves

File S9. Forest plots

File S10. Heterogeneity and inconsistency test

File S11. Meta-regression

File S12. Sensitivity analysis

File S13. Publication bias

File S14. Minimal clinically important difference and thresholds for effects.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge Professor Lawrence J. Cheskin from George Mason University for his kindly replying our email about the data availability of his registered trial. This research did not receive any funding.

Footnotes

  • The article received comments from reviewers, and we revised it accordingly.

References

  1. 1.↵
    International Diabetes Federation. IDF Diabetes Atlas. 10 edn. Brussels: International Diabetes Federation; 2021.
  2. 2.↵
    Gong Q, Zhang P, Wang J, et al. Morbidity and mortality after lifestyle intervention for people with impaired glucose tolerance: 30-year results of the Da Qing Diabetes Prevention Outcome Study. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2019;7(6):452–61.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee. 5. Facilitating Behavior Change and Well-being to Improve Health Outcomes: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2022. Diabetes Care 2021;45(Supplement_1):S60–S82.
    OpenUrl
  4. 4.↵
    Sievenpiper JL, Chan CB, Dworatzek PD, et al. Nutrition Therapy. Can J Diabetes 2018;42:S64–S79.
    OpenUrl
  5. 5.↵
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Type 2 diabetes in adults: management 2015 [updated 31 Mar 2022; cited 3 May 2022]. Available from: http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng28.
  6. 6.↵
    White P. Diabetes in Childhood and Adolescence. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger; 1932.
  7. 7.↵
    American Diabetes Association. Standards of Medical Care for Patients With Diabetes Mellitus. Diabetes Care 2003;26(Suppl_1):s33–s50.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    Lean MEJ, Leslie WS, Barnes AC, et al. Durability of a primary care-led weight-management intervention for remission of type 2 diabetes: 2-year results of the DiRECT open-label, cluster-randomised trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2019;7(5):344–55.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  9. 9.
    Martínez-González MÁ, Corella D, Salas-Salvadó J, et al. Cohort Profile: Design and methods of the PREDIMED study. Int J Epidemiol 2010;41(2):377–85.
    OpenUrl
  10. 10.
    Mitrou PN, Kipnis V, Thiébaut ACM, et al. Mediterranean Dietary Pattern and Prediction of All-Cause Mortality in a US Population: Results From the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study. Arch Intern Med 2007;167(22):2461–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  11. 11.
    Riboli E, Hunt KJ, Slimani N, et al. European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC): study populations and data collection. Public Health Nutr 2002;5(6b):1113–24.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  12. 12.
    Stevens J, Ahn K, Juhaeri, et al. Dietary Fiber Intake and Glycemic Index and Incidence of Diabetes in African-American and White Adults: The ARIC Study. Diabetes Care 2002;25(10):1715–21.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    Goldenberg JZ, Day A, Brinkworth GD, et al. Efficacy and safety of low and very low carbohydrate diets for type 2 diabetes remission: systematic review and meta-analysis of published and unpublished randomized trial data. BMJ 2021;372:m4743.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    Schwingshackl L, Chaimani A, Hoffmann G, et al. A network meta-analysis on the comparative efficacy of different dietary approaches on glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Eur J Epidemiol 2018;33(2):157–70.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    Pan B, Wu Y, Yang Q, et al. The impact of major dietary patterns on glycemic control, cardiovascular risk factors, and weight loss in patients with type 2 diabetes: A network meta-analysis. J Evid Based Med 2019;12(1):29–39.
    OpenUrl
  16. 16.↵
    McArdle PD, Greenfield SM, Rilstone SK, et al. Carbohydrate restriction for glycaemic control in Type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabet Med 2019;36(3):335–48.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    Higgins J, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.2: Cochrane; 2021 [updated Feb 2021; cited 17 Feb 2022]. Available from: http://www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
  18. 18.↵
    Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM, et al. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med 2015;162(11):777–84.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    Luo D, Wan X, Liu J, et al. Optimally estimating the sample mean from the sample size, median, mid-range, and/or mid-quartile range. Stat Methods Med Res 2018;27(6):1785–805.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    Wan X, Wang W, Liu J, et al. Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range. BMC Med Res Methodol 2014;14(1):1–13.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    Shi J, Luo D, Wan X, et al. Detecting the skewness of data from the sample size and the five-number summary. arXiv preprint arXiv:201005749 2020.
  22. 22.↵
    Rohatgi A. WebPlotDigitizer 4.5 [updated Aug 2021; cited 28 Jan 2022]. Available from: https://automeris.io/WebPlotDigitizer.
  23. 23.↵
    van Buuren S, Groothuis-Oudshoorn K. mice: Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations in R. J Stat Softw 2011;45(3):1 – 67.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  24. 24.↵
    Sterne JA, Savovic J, Page MJ, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2019;366.
  25. 25.↵
    Higgins J, Tianjing L, Jonathan S. Revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2) Additional considerations for crossover trials 2021. Available from: https://sites.google.com/site/riskofbiastool/welcome/rob-2-0-tool/rob-2-for-crossover-trials?authuser=0.
  26. 26.↵
    van Valkenhoef G, Dias S, Ades AE, et al. Automated generation of node-splitting models for assessment of inconsistency in network meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods 2016;7(1):80–93.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    van Valkenhoef G, Lu G, de Brock B, et al. Automating network meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods 2012;3(4):285–99.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    Lunn D, Spiegelhalter D, Thomas A, et al. The BUGS project: Evolution, critique and future directions. Stat Med 2009;28(25):3049–67.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  29. 29.↵
    Plummer M, Best N, Cowles K, et al. CODA: convergence diagnosis and output analysis for MCMC. R News 2006;6(1):7–11.
    OpenUrl
  30. 30.↵
    Chaimani A, Salanti G. Using network meta-analysis to evaluate the existence of small-study effects in a network of interventions. Res Synth Methods 2012;3(2):161–76.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    Viechtbauer W. Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package. J Stat Softw 2010;36(3):1 – 48.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    Puhan MA, Schünemann HJ, Murad MH, et al. A GRADE Working Group approach for rating the quality of treatment effect estimates from network meta-analysis. BMJ 2014;349:g5630.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  33. 33.↵
    GRADE Working Group. GRADE Handbook 2013 [updated September 2013; cited 10 Apr 2022]. Available from: https://gdt.gradepro.org/app/handbook/handbook.html.
  34. 34.↵
    Brignardello-Petersen R, Izcovich A, Rochwerg B, et al. GRADE approach to drawing conclusions from a network meta-analysis using a partially contextualised framework. BMJ 2020;371:m3907.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  35. 35.↵
    Ramachandran A, Riddle MC, Kabali C, et al. Relationship between A1C and fasting plasma glucose in dysglycemia or type 2 diabetes: an analysis of baseline data from the ORIGIN trial. Diabetes Care 2012;35(4):749–53.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  36. 36.↵
    Viguiliouk E, Kendall CWC, Kahleová H, et al. Effect of vegetarian dietary patterns on cardiometabolic risk factors in diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clin Nutr 2019;38(3):1133–45.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    Johnston BC, Kanters S, Bandayrel K, et al. Comparison of Weight Loss Among Named Diet Programs in Overweight and Obese Adults: A Meta-analysis. JAMA 2014;312(9):923–33.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  38. 38.↵
    Al-Jazzaf B. Dietary approaches for the reduction of cardiovascular disease risk in type 2 diabetes mellitus and obesity [Ph.D.]. Ann Arbor: University of Surrey (United Kingdom); 2007.
  39. 39.
    Azadbakht L, Fard NR, Karimi M, et al. Effects of the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) eating plan on cardiovascular risks among type 2 diabetic patients: a randomized crossover clinical trial. Diabetes Care 2011;34(1):55–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  40. 40.
    Bahado-Singh PS, Riley CK, Wheatley AO, et al. High fiber Caribbean diets with low-intermediate GI improve glycemic control, cardiovascular and inflammatory indicators in overweight persons with type 2 diabetes: A randomized control study. Current Research in Nutrition and Food Science 2015;3(1):36–45.
    OpenUrl
  41. 41.
    Barnard ND, Cohen J, Jenkins DJ, et al. A low-fat vegan diet and a conventional diabetes diet in the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a randomized, controlled, 74-wk clinical trial. Am J Clin Nutr 2009;89(5):1588s–96s.
    OpenUrl
  42. 42.
    Barnard ND, Cohen J, Jenkins DJA, et al. A low-fat vegan diet improves glycemic control and cardiovascular risk factors in a randomized clinical trial in individuals with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2006;29(8):1777–83.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  43. 43.
    Brand JC, Colagiuri S, Crossman S, et al. Low-Glycemic Index Foods Improve Long-Term Glycemic Control in NIDDM. Diabetes Care 1991;14(2):95–101.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  44. 44.
    Brehm BJ, Lattin BL, Summer SS, et al. One-year comparison of a high-monounsaturated fat diet with a high-carbohydrate diet in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2009;32(2):215–20.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  45. 45.
    Breukelman GJ, Basson AK, Djarova TG, et al. Concurrent low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet with/without physical activity does not improve glycaemic control in type 2 diabetics. South Afr J Clin Nutr 2021;34(1):18–21.
    OpenUrl
  46. 46.
    Breukelman GJ, Basson AK, Djarova TG, et al. Combination Low Carbohydrate, High Fat Diet and Physical Activity Intervention on Lipoprotein-Lipids in Type 2 Diabetics. Asian J Sports Med 2019;10(4):1–7.
    OpenUrl
  47. 47.
    Brinkworth GD, Noakes M, Parker B, et al. Long-term effects of advice to consume a high-protein, low-fat diet, rather than a conventional weight-loss diet, in obese adults with type 2 diabetes: one-year follow-up of a randomised trial. Diabetologia 2004;47(10):1677–86.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  48. 48.
    Brunerova L, Smejkalova V, Potockova J, et al. A comparison of the influence of a high-fat diet enriched in monounsaturated fatty acids and conventional diet on weight loss and metabolic parameters in obese non-diabetic and Type 2 diabetic patients. Diabet Med 2007;24(5):533–40.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. 49.
    Cao A-H, Sun L-Z, Cui J-W, et al. Effects of a low-carbohydrate diet and a low-fat diet on weight and glycemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Chin Gen Pract 2011;14(1):52-3;6. (Chinese).
    OpenUrl
  50. 50.
    Ceriello A, Esposito K, Sala LL, et al. The protective effect of the Mediterranean diet on endothelial resistance to GLP-1 in type 2 diabetes: A preliminary report. Cardiovasc Diabetol 2014;13(1).
  51. 51.
    Chandalia M, Garg A, Lutjohann D, et al. Beneficial effects of high dietary fiber intake in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 2000;342(19):1392–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  52. 52.
    Chen CY, Huang WS, Chen HC, et al. Effect of a 90 g/day low-carbohydrate diet on glycaemic control, small, dense low-density lipoprotein and carotid intima-media thickness in type 2 diabetic patients: An 18-month randomised controlled trial. PLoS One 2020;15(10):e0240158.
    OpenUrl
  53. 53.
    Chen X, Su H, Kunii D, et al. The Effects of Mobile-App-Based Low-Carbohydrate Dietary Guidance on Postprandial Hyperglycemia in Adults with Prediabetes. Diabetes Ther 2020;11(10):2341–55.
    OpenUrl
  54. 54.
    Choi KM, Han KA, Ahn HJ, et al. The effects of caloric restriction on fetuin-A and cardiovascular risk factors in rats and humans: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 2013;79(3):356–63.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. 55.
    Coppell KJ, Kataoka M, Williams SM, et al. Nutritional intervention in patients with type 2 diabetes who are hyperglycaemic despite optimised drug treatment - Lifestyle over and above drugs in diabetes (LOADD) study: Randomised controlled trial. BMJ (Online) 2010;341(7766):237.
    OpenUrl
  56. 56.
    Coulston AM, Hollenbeck CB, Swislocki ALM, et al. Persistence of hypertriglyceridemic effect of low-fat high-carbohydrate diets in NIDDM patients. Diabetes Care 1989;12(2):94–101.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  57. 57.
    Daly ME, Paisey R, Paisey R, et al. Short-term effects of severe dietary carbohydrate-restriction advice in Type 2 diabetes--a randomized controlled trial. Diabet Med 2006;23(1):15–20.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  58. 58.
    Davis NJ, Tomuta N, Schechter C, et al. Comparative study of the effects of a 1-year dietary intervention of a low-carbohydrate diet versus a low-fat diet on weight and glycemic control in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2009;32(7):1147–52.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  59. 59.
    Ding H, Shao J, Zhe W, et al. The Application of Low Glycemic Index Diet in Nutrition Intervention to Uygur Patients with Diabetes. Chin J Prev Control Chronic Dis 2010;18(2):123-4;8. (Chinese).
    OpenUrl
  60. 60.
    Ding H, Shao J, Zhe W, et al. Application of low glycemic index diet in diabetes of Uygur and its effect on biochemical indicators. Acta Nutr Sin 2010;32(5):460–2. (Chinese).
    OpenUrl
  61. 61.
    Durrer C, McKelvey S, Singer J, et al. A randomized controlled trial of pharmacist-led therapeutic carbohydrate and energy restriction in type 2 diabetes. Nat Commun 2021;12(1):5367.
    OpenUrl
  62. 62.
    Elhayany A, Lustman A, Abel R, et al. A low carbohydrate Mediterranean diet improves cardiovascular risk factors and diabetes control among overweight patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a 1-year prospective randomized intervention study. Diabetes Obes Metab 2010;12(3):204–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  63. 63.
    Esposito K, Maiorino MI, Ciotola M, et al. Effects of a Mediterranean-style diet on the need for antihyperglycemic drug therapy in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2009;151(5):306–14.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  64. 64.
    Fabricatore AN, Wadden TA, Ebbeling CB, et al. Targeting dietary fat or glycemic load in the treatment of obesity and type 2 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2011;92(1):37–45.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  65. 65.
    Fan C, Chen L, Wang H. Practice of employing a low glycemic index dietary regimen in dietary guidance for elderly diabetic patient. J Nurs Sci 2013;28(7):77–9. (Chinese).
    OpenUrl
  66. 66.
    Fan L, Duan A, Xue Z, et al. Effect of low glycemic index diet in the clinical treatment of diabetes mellitus. Chin Gen Nurs 2010;8(19):1711–2. (Chinese).
    OpenUrl
  67. 67.
    Fang F. Analysis of the Effects of Low-medium Caloric Diet on Overweight or Obese Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. Diabetes New World 2019;22(13):49–51. (Chinese).
    OpenUrl
  68. 68.
    Fang R. Effect of low glycemic index diet on glucose and lipid metabolism in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in the community. Chin J Health Care Med 2016;18(3):243–4. (Chinese).
    OpenUrl
  69. 69.
    Gannon MC, Nuttall FQ. Effect of a high-protein, low-carbohydrate diet on blood glucose control in people with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes 2004;53(9):2375–82.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  70. 70.
    Gannon MC, Nuttall FQ, Saeed A, et al. An increase in dietary protein improves the blood glucose response in persons with type 2 diabetes. Am J Clin Nutr 2003;78(4):734–41.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  71. 71.
    Goldstein T, Kark JD, Berry EM, et al. The effect of a low carbohydrate energy-unrestricted diet on weight loss in obese type 2 diabetes patients - A randomized controlled trial. e-SPEN 2011;6(4):e178–e86.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  72. 72.
    Gram-Kampmann EM, Hansen CD, Hugger MB, et al. Effects of a six-month low-carbohydrate diet on glycemic control, body composition and cardiovascular risk factors in patients with type 2 diabetes: an open-label RCT. Diabetes Obes Metab 2022;24(4):693–703.
    OpenUrl
  73. 73.
    Guldbrand H, Dizdar B, Bunjaku B, et al. In type 2 diabetes, randomisation to advice to follow a low-carbohydrate diet transiently improves glycaemic control compared with advice to follow a low-fat diet producing a similar weight loss. Diabetologia 2012;55(8):2118–27.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  74. 74.
    Guo L, Du N, Zhu J, et al. Effect of low glycemic index diet on the metabolism of 243 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. China Health Care Nutr 2014;7:4260. (Chinese).
    OpenUrl
  75. 75.
    Han Y, Cheng B, Guo Y, et al. A Low-Carbohydrate Diet Realizes Medication Withdrawal: A Possible Opportunity for Effective Glycemic Control. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 2021;12.
  76. 76.
    Hashemi R, Rahimlou M, Baghdadian S, et al. Investigating the effect of DASH diet on blood pressure of patients with type 2 diabetes and prehypertension: Randomized clinical trial. Diabetes Metab Syndr 2019;13(1):1–4.
    OpenUrl
  77. 77.
    He L, Meng G, Chen W, et al. Effects of hypoglycemia index and hypoglycemia loaded diet on oxidative stress and anthropometric parameters in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Chin J Pract Nurs 2017;33(5):347–51. (Chinese).
    OpenUrl
  78. 78.
    Heilbronn LK, Noakes M, Clifton PM. The effect of high- and low-glycemic index energy restricted diets on plasma lipid and glucose profiles in type 2 diabetic subjects with varying glycemic control. J Am Coll Nutr 2002;21(2):120–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  79. 79.
    Hockaday TDR, Hockaday JM, Mann JI, et al. Prospective comparison of modified-fat–high-carbohydrate with standard low-carbohydrate dietary advice in the treatment of diabetes: one year follow-up study. Br J Nutr 1978;39(2):357–62.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  80. 80.
    Hu X, Gu Q, Lu D, et al. Effect of diets with different carbohydrate contents and exercise on cardiovascular risk factors in people with prediabetes. Pract Clin Med (Jiangxi) 2018;19(5):1–5. (Chinese).
    OpenUrl
  81. 81.
    Huang J, Shen H, Li M. Application of low glycemic index dietary regimen in dietary education for elderly type 2 diabetic patients. Nurs Integr Tradit Chin West Med 2016;2(4):86–8. (Chinese).
    OpenUrl
  82. 82.
    Ikem RT, Kolawole BA, Ojofeitimi EO, et al. A controlled comparison of the effect of a high fiber diet on the glycaemic and lipid profile of Nigerian clinic patients with type 2 diabetes. Pak J Nutr 2007;6(2):111–6.
    OpenUrl
  83. 83.
    Iqbal N, Vetter ML, Moore RH, et al. Effects of a low-intensity intervention that prescribed a low-carbohydrate vs. a low-fat diet in obese, diabetic participants. Obesity (Silver Spring) 2010;18(9):1733–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  84. 84.
    Itsiopoulos C, Brazionis L, Kaimakamis M, et al. Can the Mediterranean diet lower HbA1c in type 2 diabetes? Results from a randomized cross-over study. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis 2011;21(9):740–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  85. 85.
    Jenkins DJA, Kendall CWC, McKeown-Eyssen G, et al. Effect of a low-glycemic index or a high-cereal fiber diet on type 2 diabetes: A randomized trial. JAMA 2008;300(23):2742–53.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  86. 86.
    Jimenez-Cruz A, Bacardi-Gascon M, Turnbull WH, et al. A flexible, low-glycemic index Mexican-style diet in overweight and obese subjects with type 2 diabetes improves metabolic parameters during a 6-week treatment period. Diabetes Care 2003;26(7):1967–70.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  87. 87.↵
    Jönsson T, Granfeldt Y, Ahrén B, et al. Beneficial effects of a Paleolithic diet on cardiovascular risk factors in type 2 diabetes: a randomized cross-over pilot study. Cardiovasc Diabetol 2009;8:35.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  88. 88.
    Kahleova H, Matoulek M, Malinska H, et al. Vegetarian diet improves insulin resistance and oxidative stress markers more than conventional diet in subjects with Type 2 diabetes. Diabet Med 2011;28(5):549–59.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  89. 89.
    Krebs JD, Elley CR, Parry-Strong A, et al. The Diabetes Excess Weight Loss (DEWL) Trial: a randomised controlled trial of high-protein versus high-carbohydrate diets over 2 years in type 2 diabetes. Diabetologia 2012;55(4):905–14.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  90. 90.
    Lasa A, Miranda J, Bulló M, et al. Comparative effect of two Mediterranean diets versus a low-fat diet on glycaemic control in individuals with type 2 diabetes. Eur J Clin Nutr 2014;68(7):767–72.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  91. 91.↵
    Lee YM, Kim SA, Lee IK, et al. Effect of a Brown Rice Based Vegan Diet and Conventional Diabetic Diet on Glycemic Control of Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A 12-Week Randomized Clinical Trial. PLoS One 2016;11(6):e0155918.
    OpenUrl
  92. 92.
    Li R, Liu F, Cui S. Effectiveness of 30% low-carbohydrate diet in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus and its effect on patients’ body mass index. J Med Theory Pract 2021;34(8):1316–7. (Chinese).
    OpenUrl
  93. 93.
    Li S, Lin G, Chen J, et al. The effect of periodic ketogenic diet on newly diagnosed overweight or obese patients with type 2 diabetes. BMC Endocrine Disorders 2022;22:34.
    OpenUrl
  94. 94.
    Li Z-Y, Zhou Y-L. Effect of nutritional education of low glycemic index foods on type 2 diabetic patients. Nurs Pract Res 2011;8(1):7–8. (Chinese).
    OpenUrl
  95. 95.
    Liu K. Dietary intervention strategies for prevention and treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus [Ph.D.]. Chongqing: The Third Military Medical University; 2016. (Chinese).
  96. 96.
    Liu X, Lu Y, Li M, et al. Effectiveness of low glycemic index diet for obese type 2 diabetes. Shandong Med J 2011;51(47):95–6. (Chinese).
    OpenUrl
  97. 97.
    Liu X, Qiao J, Qin Y, et al. Effect of ketogenic diet and energy-limiting balanced diet on body composition, blood glucose, and lipids in overweight T2DM patients. Chin J Clin Healthc 2020;23(6):823–6. (Chinese).
    OpenUrl
  98. 98.
    Lousley SE, Jones DB, Slaughter P, et al. High carbohydrate-high fibre diets in poorly controlled diabetes. Diabet Med 1984;1(1):21–5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  99. 99.
    Luger M, Holstein B, Schindler K, et al. Feasibility and efficacy of an isocaloric high-protein vs. standard diet on insulin requirement, body weight and metabolic parameters in patients with type 2 diabetes on insulin therapy. Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes 2013;121(5):286–94.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  100. 100.
    Ma Y, Olendzki BC, Merriam PA, et al. A randomized clinical trial comparing low–glycemic index versus ADA dietary education among individuals with type 2 diabetes. Nutrition 2008;24(1):45–56.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  101. 101.
    Marco-Benedí V, Pérez-Calahorra S, Bea AM, et al. High-protein energy-restricted diets induce greater improvement in glucose homeostasis but not in adipokines comparing to standard-protein diets in early-onset diabetic adults with overweight or obesity. Clin Nutr 2020;39(5):1354–63.
    OpenUrl
  102. 102.
    McLaughlin T, Carter S, Lamendola C, et al. Clinical efficacy of two hypocaloric diets that vary in overweight patients with type 2 diabetes - Comparison of moderate fat versus carbohydrate reductions. Diabetes Care 2007;30(7):1877–9.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  103. 103.
    Mehling C. Comparison of low glycemic index high carbohydrate, high glycemic index high carbohydrate and monounsaturated fat-enriched diets on insulin sensitivity in the treatment of impaired glucose tolerance [M.Sc.]. Ann Arbor: University of Toronto (Canada); 2000.
  104. 104.
    Mohammadi S, Arefhosseini SR, Jafarabadi MA, et al. Regulation of serum lipid profile, glucose, insulin, and adiponectin in obese diabetic women under diet therapy: A randomized clinical controlled study. Iran Red Crescent Med J 2017;19(1).
  105. 105.
    Mollentze WF, Joubert G, Prins A, et al. The safety and efficacy of a low-energy diet to induce weight loss, improve metabolic health, and induce diabetes remission in insulin-treated obese men with type 2 diabetes: a pilot RCT. Int J Diabetes Dev Ctries 2019;39(4):618–25.
    OpenUrl
  106. 106.
    Nicholson AS, Sklar M, Barnard ND, et al. Toward improved management of NIDDM: A randomized, controlled, pilot intervention using a lowfat, vegetarian diet. Prev Med 1999;29(2):87–91.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  107. 107.
    Ning G, Li W. Effectiveness of a 30% low-carbohydrate diet in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus and the effect on patients’ blood lipid levels. J Chin Prescr Drug 2020;18(6):191–2. (Chinese).
    OpenUrl
  108. 108.
    Parker B, Noakes M, Luscombe N, et al. Effect of a high-protein, high-monounsaturated fat weight loss diet on glycemic control and lipid levels in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2002;25(3):425–30.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  109. 109.
    Pavithran N, Kumar H, Menon AS, et al. The Effect of a Low GI Diet on Truncal Fat Mass and Glycated Hemoglobin in South Indians with Type 2 Diabetes-A Single Centre Randomized Prospective Study. Nutrients 2020;12(1).
  110. 110.
    Pavithran N, Kumar H, Menon AS, et al. South Indian cuisine with low glycemic index ingredients reduces cardiovascular risk factors in subjects with type 2 diabetes. International journal of environmental research and public health 2020;17(17):1–17.
    OpenUrl
  111. 111.
    Pedersen E, Jesudason DR, Clifton PM. High protein weight loss diets in obese subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis 2014;24(5):554–62.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  112. 112.
    Perna S, Alalwan TA, Gozzer C, et al. Effectiveness of a hypocaloric and low-carbohydrate diet on visceral adipose tissue and glycemic control in overweight and obese patients with type 2 diabetes. Bahrain Medical Bull 2019;41(3):159–64.
    OpenUrl
  113. 113.
    Rizkalla SW, Taghrid L, Laromiguiere M, et al. Improved plasma glucose control, whole-body glucose utilization, and lipid profile on a low-glycemic index diet in type 2 diabetic men: a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care 2004;27(8):1866–72.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  114. 114.
    Rock CL, Flatt SW, Pakiz B, et al. Weight loss, glycemic control, and cardiovascular disease risk factors in response to differential diet composition in a weight loss program in type 2 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care 2014;37(6):1573–80.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  115. 115.
    Ruggenenti P, Abbate M, Ruggiero B, et al. Renal and Systemic Effects of Calorie Restriction in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes With Abdominal Obesity: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Diabetes 2017;66(1):75–86.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  116. 116.
    Ruggenenti P, Cortinovis M, Trillini M, et al. Long-term kidney and systemic effects of calorie restriction in overweight or obese type 2 diabetic patients (C.Re.S.O. 2 randomized controlled trial). Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2022;185.
  117. 117.
    Saslow LR, Daubenmier JJ, Moskowitz JT, et al. Twelve-month outcomes of a randomized trial of a moderate-carbohydrate versus very low-carbohydrate diet in overweight adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus or prediabetes. Nutr Diabetes 2017;7(12):304.
    OpenUrl
  118. 118.
    Saslow LR, Kim S, Daubenmier JJ, et al. A randomized pilot trial of a moderate carbohydrate diet compared to a very low carbohydrate diet in overweight or obese individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus or prediabetes. PLoS One 2014;9(4):e91027.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  119. 119.
    Sato J, Kanazawa A, Makita S, et al. A randomized controlled trial of 130&#xa0;g/day low-carbohydrate diet in type 2 diabetes with poor glycemic control. Clin Nutr 2017;36(4):992–1000.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  120. 120.
    Shen X, Bao L, Zhou H, et al. Application of dietary intervention with low glycemic index in the treatment of orthopedic patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. China Mod Doctor 2021;59(15):19–22. (Chinese).
    OpenUrl
  121. 121.
    Shige H, Nestel P, Sviridov D, et al. Effect of weight reduction on the distribution of apolipoprotein A-I in high-density lipoprotein subfractions in obese non-insulin-dependent diabetic subjects. Metabolism 2000;49(11):1453–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  122. 122.
    Skytte MJ, Samkani A, Petersen AD, et al. A carbohydrate-reduced high-protein diet improves HbA1c and liver fat content in weight stable participants with type 2 diabetes: a randomised controlled trial. Diabetologia 2019;62(11):2066–78.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  123. 123.
    Stentz FB, Brewer A, Wan J, et al. Remission of pre-diabetes to normal glucose tolerance in obese adults with high protein versus high carbohydrate diet: randomized control trial. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care 2016;4(1):e000258.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  124. 124.
    Sun J-Q, Zhang X-Y, Zong M, et al. Investigation of low glycemic index diet on blood glucose, lipid profile and body weight control in patients with type 2 diabetes. Chin J Endocrinol Metab 2007;23(6):541–3. (Chinese).
    OpenUrl
  125. 125.
    Sun Q, Wu G. Clinical efficacy of low-carbohydrate diet in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. China Pharm 2020;29(S2):102–3. (Chinese).
    OpenUrl
  126. 126.
    Tang W. Clinical efficacy of 30% low-carbohydrate diet in the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Clin Res 2021;29(3):98–9. (Chinese).
    OpenUrl
  127. 127.
    Tay J, Luscombe-Marsh ND, Thompson CH, et al. Comparison of low- and high-carbohydrate diets for type 2 diabetes management: a randomized trial. Am J Clin Nutr 2015;102(4):780–90.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  128. 128.
    Thomsen MN, Skytte MJ, Samkani A, et al. Dietary carbohydrate restriction augments weight loss-induced improvements in glycaemic control and liver fat in individuals with type 2 diabetes: a randomised controlled trial. Diabetologia 2022;doi:10.1007/s00125-021-05628-8.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  129. 129.
    Uusitupa M, Laitinen J, Siitonen O, et al. The maintenance of improved metabolic control after intensified diet therapy in recent type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 1993;19(3):227–38.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  130. 130.
    Visek J, Lacigova S, Cechurova D, et al. Comparison of a low-glycemic index vs standard diabetic diet. Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub 2014;158(1):112–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  131. 131.
    Walker KZ, O’Dea K, Nicholson GC, et al. Dietary composition, body weight, and NIDDM. Comparison of high-fiber, high-carbohydrate, and modified-fat diets. Diabetes Care 1995;18(3):401–3.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  132. 132.
    Wang C-M. Effect of Nutrition Therapy of Low Glycemic Index Foods on Type 2 Diabetic Patients. West China Med J 2009;24(12):3137–9. (Chinese).
    OpenUrl
  133. 133.
    Wang L-L, Wang Q, Hong Y, et al. The Effect of Low-Carbohydrate Diet on Glycemic Control in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. Nutrients 2018;10(6):661.
    OpenUrl
  134. 134.
    Wang X, Chu J, Hao S, et al. Effect of dietary intervention on glucose and lipids in elderly diabetic patients. Chin J Clin Res 2015;28(10):1319-21;25. (Chinese).
    OpenUrl
  135. 135.
    Wang Y-L, Yao Y-N, Yang X-L. Clinical study of the changing of bodyweight (BW)and fasting blood glucose (FBG) in obese patients with type 2 diabetes on a low-carbohydrate diet (LCD). J Xinjiang Med Univ 2009;32(7):914–6. (Chinese).
    OpenUrl
  136. 136.
    Watson N, Dyer K, Buckley J, et al. Effects of Low-Fat Diets Differing in Protein and Carbohydrate Content on Cardiometabolic Risk Factors during Weight Loss and Weight Maintenance in Obese Adults with Type 2 Diabetes. Nutrients 2016;8(5):289.
    OpenUrl
  137. 137.
    Westman EC, Yancy WS, Jr.., Mavropoulos JC, et al. The effect of a low-carbohydrate, ketogenic diet versus a low-glycemic index diet on glycemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Nutr Metab (Lond) 2008;5:36.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  138. 138.
    Wolever TM, Jenkins DJ, Vuksan V, et al. Beneficial effect of low-glycemic index diet in overweight NIDDM subjects. Diabetes Care 1992;15(4):562–4.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  139. 139.
    Wolever TMS, Gibbs AL, Mehling C, et al. The Canadian Trial of Carbohydrates in Diabetes (CCD), a 1-y controlled trial of low-glycemic-index dietary carbohydrate in type 2 diabetes: No effect on glycated hemoglobin but reduction in C-reactive protein. Am J Clin Nutr 2008;87(1):114–25.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  140. 140.
    Wu W, Liu C. Effect of low glycemic index diet on blood glucose, blood lipid and nutritional intake in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. J Hubei Minzu Univ (Med Edn) 2020;37(3):54–6. (Chinese).
    OpenUrl
  141. 141.
    Xue D. Effect of a Mediterranean diet on glucose and lipid metabolism in patients with type 2 diabetes. Electron J Pract Clin Nurs Sci 2020;6(5):106–7. (Chinese).
    OpenUrl
  142. 142.
    Yamada Y, Uchida J, Izumi H, et al. A non-calorie-restricted low-carbohydrate diet is effective as an alternative therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes. Intern Med 2014;53(1):13–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  143. 143.
    Ye B, Chen L. Effect of low glycemic index diet based on goal-setting theory on the intervention of patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes World 2021;18(2):133. (Chinese).
    OpenUrl
  144. 144.
    Yu Y. Effect of low glycemic index diet in patients with type 2 diabetes. Med J Chin People’s Health 2020;32(9):127–9. (Chinese).
    OpenUrl
  145. 145.
    Zahedi M, Akhlagh SA, Aboomardani M, et al. Efficacy of mediterranean diet on blood biochemical factors in type II diabetic patients: A randomized controlled trial. Gazi Med J 2021;31(4A):714–8.
    OpenUrl
  146. 146.
    Zhao Y. Effect of low glycemic index diet on glucose and lipid metabolism in patients with type 2 diabetes. China Health Care Nutr 2018;4(28):41–2. (Chinese).
    OpenUrl
  147. 147.
    Zheng X, Zhou L, Wang J. Influence of low glycemic index (GI) diet on glucose and lipid metabolism of patients with type 2 diabetes. China Mod Doctor 2015;53(8):81-3;6. (Chinese).
    OpenUrl
  148. 148.↵
    Zhou W. Effects of diet interventions on glycemic control and cytokines changes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus [M.Nurs.]. Wuhan: Zhongnan University; 2011. (Chinese).
  149. 149.↵
    American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee. 8. Obesity and Weight Management for the Prevention and Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2022. Diabetes Care 2021;45(Supplement_1):S113–S24.
    OpenUrl
  150. 150.↵
    Kraus WE, Bhapkar M, Huffman KM, et al. 2 years of calorie restriction and cardiometabolic risk (CALERIE): exploratory outcomes of a multicentre, phase 2, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2019;7(9):673–83.
    OpenUrl
  151. 151.↵
    Van Gaal LF, Wauters MA, De Leeuw IH. The beneficial effects of modest weight loss on cardiovascular risk factors. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1997;21 Suppl 1:S5–9.
    OpenUrlWeb of Science
  152. 152.↵
    Zomer E, Gurusamy K, Leach R, et al. Interventions that cause weight loss and the impact on cardiovascular risk factors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obes Rev 2016;17(10):1001–11.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  153. 153.↵
    Dong J-Y, Zhang Z-L, Wang P-Y, et al. Effects of high-protein diets on body weight, glycaemic control, blood lipids and blood pressure in type 2 diabetes: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Br J Nutr 2013;110(5):781–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  154. 154.↵
    DiNicolantonio JJ, O’Keefe JH. Effects of dietary fats on blood lipids: a review of direct comparison trials. Open Heart 2018;5(2):e000871.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  155. 155.↵
    Zafar MI, Mills KE, Zheng J, et al. Low-glycemic index diets as an intervention for diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Clin Nutr 2019;110(4):891–902.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  156. 156.↵
    Liese AD, Schulz M, Fang F, et al. Dietary Glycemic Index and Glycemic Load, Carbohydrate and Fiber Intake, and Measures of Insulin Sensitivity, Secretion, and Adiposity in the Insulin Resistance Atherosclerosis Study. Diabetes Care 2005;28(12):2832–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  157. 157.↵
    Wolever TM. Relationship between dietary fiber content and composition in foods and the glycemic index. Am J Clin Nutr 1990;51(1):72–5.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  158. 158.↵
    Reynolds A, Mann J, Cummings JH, et al. Carbohydrate quality and human health: a series of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Lancet 2019;393(10170):434–45.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  159. 159.↵
    Seidelmann SB, Claggett B, Cheng S, et al. Dietary carbohydrate intake and mortality: a prospective cohort study and meta-analysis. The Lancet Public Health 2018;3(9):e419–e28.
    OpenUrl
  160. 160.↵
    Stephen AM, Champ MM, Cloran SJ, et al. Dietary fibre in Europe: current state of knowledge on definitions, sources, recommendations, intakes and relationships to health. Nutr Res Rev 2017;30(2):149
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  161. 161.↵
    Martín-Peláez S, Fito M, Castaner O. Mediterranean Diet Effects on Type 2 Diabetes Prevention, Disease Progression, and Related Mechanisms. A Review. Nutrients 2020;12(8):2236.
    OpenUrl
  162. 162.↵
    Neuenschwander M, Hoffmann G, Schwingshackl L, et al. Impact of different dietary approaches on blood lipid control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. European Journal of Epidemiology 2019;34(9):837–52.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  163. 163.↵
    Davis C, Bryan J, Hodgson J, et al. Definition of the Mediterranean Diet; A Literature Review. Nutrients 2015;7(11):9139–53.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  164. 164.↵
    Martínez-González MA, Fernández-Jarne E, Serrano-Martínez M, et al. Development of a short dietary intake questionnaire for the quantitative estimation of adherence to a cardioprotective Mediterranean diet. Eur J Clin Nutr 2004;58(11):1550–2.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  165. 165.↵
    US Department of Agriculture and US Department of Health and Human Services. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2020-2025 2020. Available from: DietaryGuidelines.gov.
  166. 166.↵
    Dyson PA, Twenefour D, Breen C, et al. Diabetes UK evidence-based nutrition guidelines for the prevention and management of diabetes. Diabet Med 2018;35(5):541–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  167. 167.↵
    Shirani F, Salehi-Abargouei A, Azadbakht L. Effects of Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet on some risk for developing type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis on controlled clinical trials. Nutrition 2013;29(7):939–47.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  168. 168.↵
    Rydhög B, Granfeldt Y, Sundquist K, et al. Paleolithic diet fraction in post hoc data analysis of a randomized cross-over study comparing Paleolithic diet with diabetes diet. Clin Nutr Open Sci 2021;38:73–80.
    OpenUrl
Back to top
Posted October 02, 2022.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email
Comparative efficacy of different eating patterns in the management of type 2 diabetes and prediabetes: An arm-based Bayesian network meta-analysis
Ben-tuo Zeng, Hui-qing Pan, Feng-dan Li, Zhen-yu Ye, Yang Liu, Ji-wei Du
medRxiv 2022.05.30.22275766; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.05.30.22275766
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area