Summary of findings 3. Nutritional measures for non‐diabetic adults with chronic kidney disease (CKD).
| Nutritional measures for non‐diabetic adults with CKD | |||||
| Patient or population: non‐diabetic adults with CKD Setting: all settings Intervention: very low of low protein diet Comparison: normal or low protein diet | |||||
| Outcomes | Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No. of participants (studies) | Certainty of the evidence (GRADE) | |
| Risk with normal or low protein diet | Risk with very low or low protein diet | ||||
| Final body weight: low protein versus normal protein diet | The mean final body weight 3.09 kg lower (5.02 to 1.16 lower) with low protein diet compared to normal protein diet | ‐ | 223 (2) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOW 1 2 | |
| Final body weight: very low protein diet versus low protein diet | The mean final body weight 1.4 kg higher (3.40 lower to 6.21 higher) with very low protein diet compared to low protein diet | ‐ | 291 (4) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOW 3 4 | |
| Protein energy wasting (malnutrition) | 4 per 1,000 | 6 per 1,000 (2 to 17) | RR 1.31 (0.42 to 4.13) | 2373 (15) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW 2 |
| *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 | |||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High 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 Increased risk of bias related to incomplete outcome data and selective reporting
2 Small studies and wide confidence intervals and include potential for important benefits and harms
3 3/4 studies are unclear for allocation concealment and random sequence generation
4 Serious unexplained heterogeneity