Skip to main content
. 2018 Oct 4;2018(10):CD001892. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001892.pub4

Summary of findings for the main comparison. Low protein diet versus normal protein diet for non‐diabetic adults with chronic kidney disease (CKD).

Low protein diet versus normal protein diet for non‐diabetic adults with CKD
Patient or population: non‐diabetic adults with CKD
 Setting: all settings
 Intervention: low protein diet
 Comparison: normal protein diet
Outcomes Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) Relative effect
 (95% CI) No. of participants
 (studies) Certainty of the evidence
 (GRADE)
Risk with normal protein diet Risk with low protein diet
Death (all causes) 55 per 1,000 42 per 1,000
 (28 to 65) RR 0.77
 (0.51 to 1.18) 1680 (5) ⊕⊕⊕⊝
 MODERATE 1
ESKD 144 per 1,000 151 per 1,000
 (105 to 220) RR 1.05
 (0.73 to 1.53) 1814 (6) ⊕⊕⊝⊝
 LOW 1 2
End or change in GFR The SMD for end or change in GFR was 0.18 lower (0.75 lower to 0.38 higher) with low protein diet compared to normal protein diet 1680 (8) ⊕⊝⊝⊝
 VERY LOW 1 2 3
*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
 
 CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio; ESKD: end‐stage kidney disease; GFR: glomerular filtration rate; SMD ‐ standardised mean difference
GRADE Working Group grades of evidenceHigh certainty: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
 Moderate certainty: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different
 Low certainty: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
 Very low certainty: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect

1 The confidence intervals include potential for important benefits and harms

2 Important and unexplained heterogeneity present

3 The outcome reported is a surrogate outcome