Table 1.
General characteristics of randomized controlled intervention trials included in the meta-analysis
|
Reference |
Sample size, |
Age, |
Duration, months |
Dietary intervention |
Dietary protocol |
Energy restricted (kcal) |
Drop Out |
Study quality |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
BMI (kg/m2), |
Female (%) |
Protein(%), Carbohydrates(%), Fat(%) |
||||||
| % diabetics | Male (%) | |||||||
| Brinkworth et al. 2004 I [23] |
58 |
50.2 |
16 |
HP/LF vs. |
30%, 40%, 30% |
1555 (12 weeks), energy balance (4 weeks), no restriction (follow up) |
27% |
2 |
| 34 |
77.5% |
LP/LF |
15%, 55%, 30% |
1555 (12 weeks), energy balance (4 weeks), no restriction (follow up) |
23% |
|||
| 0% |
22.5% |
|||||||
| Brinkworth et al. 2004 II [24] |
66 |
>60 |
15 |
HP/LF vs. |
30%, 40%, 30% |
1600 (8 weeks) energy balance (4 weeks), no restriction (follow up) |
39% |
3 |
| 27-40 |
n.d |
LP/LF |
15%, 55%, 30% |
1600 (8 weeks) energy balance (4 weeks), no restriction (follow up) |
42% |
|||
| 100% |
n.d |
|||||||
| Clifton et al. 2007 [25] |
79 |
49 |
15 |
HP/LF vs. |
34%, 46%, 20% |
1340 (12 weeks), energy balance (follow up, 52 weeks) |
29% |
2 |
| 32.8 |
100% |
LP/LF |
17%, 64%, 20% |
1340 (12 weeks), energy balance (follow up, 52 weeks) |
38% |
|||
| 0% |
0% |
|||||||
| Dansinger et al. 2005 [26] |
80 |
49 |
12 |
HP/LF vs. |
30%, 40%, 30% |
no |
35% |
4 |
| 35 |
48% |
LP/LF |
10-15%, >65%, 10% |
no |
50% |
|||
| n.d |
52% |
|||||||
| Das et al. 2007 [27] |
34 |
35 |
12 |
HP/LF vs. |
30%, 40%, 30% |
1900 |
18% |
2 |
| 27.6 |
n.d |
LP/LF |
20%, 60%, 20% |
1960 |
12% |
|||
| 0% |
n.d |
|||||||
| Delbridge et al. 2009 [28] |
141 |
44 |
12 |
HP/LF vs. |
30%, 40%, 30% |
no |
37% |
3 |
| 39 |
50% |
LP/LF |
15%, 55%, 30% |
no |
41% |
|||
| n.d |
50% |
|||||||
| Due et al. 2004[29] |
50 |
39.6 |
12 |
HP/LF vs. |
30%, 40%, 30% |
no |
8% |
1 |
| 30.4 |
76% |
LP/LF |
15%, 55%, 30% |
no |
28% |
|||
| 0% |
24% |
|||||||
| Gardner et al. 2007 [22] |
232 |
40.6 |
12 |
HP/LF vs. |
30%, 40%, 30% |
yes |
23% |
4 |
| 31.33 |
100% |
LP/LF* |
10-15%, 55-70%, 10/30% |
no/yes |
23% |
|||
| 0% |
0% |
|||||||
| Keogh et al. 2007 [31] |
25 |
48.7 |
12 |
HP/LF vs. |
40%, 33%, 27% |
1435 |
n.d |
1 |
| 32.9 |
68% |
LP/LF |
20%, 60%, 20% |
1435 |
n.d |
|||
| 0% |
32% |
|||||||
| Krebs et al. 2012 [32] |
419 |
57.9 |
24 |
HP/LF vs. |
30%, 40%, 30% |
-500 |
30% |
4 |
| 36.6 |
60% |
LP/LF |
15%, 55%, 30% |
-500 |
24% |
|||
| 100% |
40% |
|||||||
| Larsen et al. 2011 [33] |
99 |
59.2 |
12 |
HP/LF vs. |
30%, 40%, 30% |
1530 (3 months), energy balance (follow up) |
19% |
4 |
| 27-40 |
52% |
LP/LF |
15%, 55%, 30% |
1530 (3 months), energy balance (follow up) |
20% |
|||
| 100% |
48% |
|||||||
| Layman et al. 2008 [30] |
130 |
45.4 |
12 |
HP/LF vs. |
30%, 40%, 30% |
1700 women, 1900 men |
36% |
2 |
| 32.6 |
55% |
LP/LF |
15%, 55%, 30% |
1700 women, 1900 men |
55% |
|||
| n.d |
45% |
|||||||
| McAuley et al. 2006 [34] |
48 |
n.d |
12 |
HP/LF vs. |
30%, 40%, 30% |
no |
7% |
2 |
| n.d |
100% |
LP/LF |
15%, 55%, 30% |
no |
25% |
|||
| Insulin resistant |
0% |
|||||||
| Sacks et al. 2009 [35] |
406 |
50.5 |
24 |
HP/LF vs. |
25%, 55%, 20% |
-750 |
22% |
4 |
| 33 |
64% |
LP/LF |
15%, 65%, 20% |
-750 |
16% |
|||
| 0% |
36% |
|||||||
| Wycherley et al. 2012 [36] |
123 |
20-65 |
12 |
HP/LF vs. |
35%, 40%, 25% |
1700 |
43% |
4 |
| 27-40 |
0% |
LP/LF |
17%, 58%, 25% |
1700 |
44% |
|||
| 0% | 100% |
*two kind of LP/LF diets (very LF: 10% and LF: 30% of total energy content).
HP, high-protein; LF, low fat; LP, low-protein; n.d, no data.