Summary of findings for the main comparison. Dietary intervention compared to control for people living beyond cancer.
| Dietary intervention compared to control for people living beyond cancer | ||||||
| Patient or population: people living beyond cancer Setting: community Intervention: dietary intervention Comparison: control | ||||||
| Outcomes | Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | № of participants (studies) | Certainty of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Risk with control | Risk with dietary intervention | |||||
| Mortality Follow‐up: 7.3 years | Study population | HR 0.98 (0.77 to 1.23) | 3107 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ Lowa,b | ||
| 106 per 1000 | 104 per 1000 (82 to 128) | |||||
| Secondary cancers Follow‐up: 7.3 years | Study population | RR 0.99 (0.84 to 1.15) | 3107 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ Lowa,b | ||
| 168 per 1000 | 166 per 1000 (141 to 193) | |||||
| Fruit and vegetable intake assessed as servings Follow‐up: 12 months | Mean fruit and vegetable intake was 4.56 servings | MD 0.41 servings higher (0.1 higher to 0.71 higher) | ‐ | 834 (5 RCTs) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ Moderatec | |
| Fibre intake assessed as g Follow‐up: 12 months | Mean fibre intake was 15.6 g | MD 5.12 g higher (0.66 lower to 10.9 higher) | ‐ | 3127 (2 RCTs) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very lowb,d | |
| Diet Quality Index Follow‐up: 12 months | Mean Diet Quality Index was 64.7 | MD 3.46 higher (1.54 higher to 5.38 higher) | ‐ | 747 (3 RCTs) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ Moderatee | |
| Body mass index Follow‐up: 12 months | Mean body mass index was 29.63 kg/m² | MD 0.79 Kg/m2 lower (1.5 lower to 0.7 lower) | ‐ | 777 (4 RCTs) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ Moderatee | |
| Waist‐to‐hip circumference assessed as cm Follow‐up: 12 months | Mean waist‐to‐hip circumference was ‐0.46 cm | MD 0.01 cm lower (0.04 lower to 0.02 higher) | ‐ | 106 (2 RCTs) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ Lowc,f | |
| *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; HR: hazard ratio; RCT: randomised controlled trial; 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. | ||||||
aInability to rate consistency as only one study. bConfidence intervals are not narrow. cDowngraded one level due to indirectness. dDowngraded two levels for high level of inconsistency between studies. eDowngraded one level for risk of bias. fDowngraded one level due to small sample sizes.