Table 10. Summary of findings for meta-analysis of low carbohydrate diets compared with balanced diets for overweight and obese adults: 3–6 months follow-up.
| Patient or population: overweight and obese adults without type 2 diabetes |
| Settings: primary care |
| Intervention: low carbohydrate diets (includes high fat and high protein variants) |
| Comparison: balanced diets |
| Follow-up: 3–6 months after starting diet |
CI: Confidence interval ;
Note this is the univariate average change observed between follow-up and baseline in the control group.
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence.
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.
Downgraded by 1 for risk of bias: 8 of 14 studies did not report adequate sequence generation and 13 studies did not report adequate allocation concealment. 4 studies had high total attrition (>20%) and 2 other studies had differential attrition.
Not downgraded for inconsistency: no qualitative heterogeneity; some quantitative heterogeneity, to be expected.
Downgraded by 1 for risk of bias: 1 study did not report adequate sequence generation, none of the studies reported on allocation concealment and 1 study had high total attrition (>20%).
Downgraded by 1 for risk of bias: 5 of 8 studies did not report adequate sequence generation and 7 studies did not report adequate allocation concealment. 2 studies had high total attrition (>20%).
Downgraded by 1 for inconsistency: Mean differences were on opposite sides of the line of no difference (I2 51%).
Downgraded by 1 for risk of bias: 5 of 8 studies did not report adequate sequence generation and 7 studies did not report adequate allocation concealment. 2 studies had high total attrition (>20%).
Downgraded by 1 for risk of bias: 5 of 12 studies did not report adequate sequence generation and 11 studies did not report adequate allocation concealment. 3 studies had high total attrition (>20%) and 2 other studies had differential attrition.
Downgraded by 1 for risk of bias: 6 of 12 studies did not report adequate sequence generation and 11 studies did not report adequate allocation concealment. 3 studies had high total attrition (>20%) and 2 studies had differential attrition.
Downgraded by 1 for inconsistency: Mean differences were on opposite sides of the line of no difference (I2 63%).
Downgraded by 1 for risk of bias: 6 of 12 studies did not report adequate sequence generation and 11 studies did not report adequate allocation concealment. 3 studies had had total attrition (>20%) and 2 studies had differential attrition.
Downgraded by 1 for inconsistency: Mean differences were on opposite sides of the line of no difference (I2 72%).