Houtsmuller 1979.
Study characteristics | ||
Methods | RCT Summary risk of bias: moderate to high |
|
Participants | Adults with newly‐diagnosed diabetes (the Netherlands)
CVD risk: moderate Control: 51 randomised, unclear how many analysed (all analysed re deaths) Intervention: 51 randomised, unclear how many analysed (all re deaths) Mean years in trial: unclear (max duration 6 years) % male: 56% overall Age: mean unclear Baseline total fat intake: unclear Baseline saturated fat intake: unclear Ethnicity: not stated Statins use allowed? Unclear % taking statins: Not reported (probably none as too early, pre‐1980) |
|
Interventions | Modified fat vs usual diet Control aims: SFA 35%E, CHO 50%E, protein 15%E Intervention aims: total fat 40%E, 1/3 linoleic acid, CHO 45%E, protein 15%E Control methods: unclear, surveyed by dietitian Intervention methods: unclear, surveyed by dietitian Intervention appears to be delivered by dietitian but no clear details on format or frequency Total fat intake: not reported Saturated fat intake: not reported (mean difference unclear) PUFA intake: not reported PUFA n‐3 intake: not reported PUFA n‐6 intake: not reported MUFA intake: not reported CHO intake: not reported Protein intake: not reported Trans fat intake: not reported Replacement for saturated fat: mainly PUFA (based on dietary aims) Style: diet advice? Setting: community |
|
Outcomes | Stated trial outcomes: progression of diabetic retinopathy
Data available on total mortality? no
Cardiovascular mortality? no
Events available for combined cardiovascular events: total MI and angina Secondary outcomes: total cholesterol, TGs (data read off graph), CHD mortality (fatal MI), CHD events (MI, angina) |
|
Notes | Study duration 6 years. Study aim was for control group to take 35%E as saturated fat, and the intervention group 40%E from fat, of which 33% was from linoleic acid (so saturated fat < 27%E), but saturated fat intake during trial not reported SFA reduction aimed (unclear whether achieved). Total serum cholesterol, difference between intervention and control, mmol/L: ‐0.47(95% CI ‐0.76 to ‐0.18), statistically significant reduction Trial dates: Study recruitment 1973 to (unclear) Funding: Dutch Heart Foundation Declarations of Interest of primary researchers: none stated, all authors worked for academic or health institutions |
|
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Participants matched in pairs then randomised |
Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Allocation method not clearly described |
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | High risk | Unclear, though unlikely as dietary advice provided |
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) CVD outcomes | Unclear risk | Blinding of outcome assessors not mentioned |
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All‐cause mortality | Low risk | Blinding is not relevant in assessment of mortality |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Unclear, deaths, cancer and CV events are dropouts, trialists asked for data ‐ unclear if any data missing |
Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | Not relevant for primary and secondary outcomes as we asked all trialists for data |
Free of systematic difference in care? | Unclear risk | Level and type of intervention unclear. See control and intervention methods in the Interventions section of the table of Characteristics of included studies |
Stated aim to reduce SFA | Low risk | Aim to reduce SFA stated |
Achieved SFA reduction | Unclear risk | SFA intake not reported |
Achieved TC reduction | Low risk | Statistically significant TC fall |
Other bias | Low risk | None noted |