Table 1.
League table for LDL cholesterol showing comparative effect sizes between dietary patterns 1.
| Mediterranean | |||||||||
| −0.03 (−0.27, 0.21) 4 |
DASH | ||||||||
| −0.25 (−0.71, 0.22) 4 |
−0.21 (−0.70, 0.28) 4 |
Paleo | |||||||
| −0.11 (−0.30, 0.07) 3 |
−0.08 (−0.32, 0.16) 3 |
0.13 (−0.30, 0.56) 4 |
DG-based | ||||||
| −0.23 (−0.85, 0.39) 5 |
−0.20 (−0.84, 0.45) 5 |
0.02 (−0.74, 0.78) 4 |
−0.12 (−0.74, 0.51) 5 |
Low GI/GL | |||||
| −0.01 (−0.20, 0.19) 3 |
0.02 (−0.24, 0.28) 5 |
0.24 (−0.24, 0.71) 4 |
0.10 (−0.10, 0.31) 2 |
0.22 (−0.41, 0.85) 5 |
Plant-based | ||||
| −0.03 (−0.18, 0.11) 3 |
0.00 (−0.24, 0.24) 3 |
0.21 (−0.26, 0.69) 4 |
0.08 (−0.12, 0.28) 4 |
0.20 (−0.43, 0.82) 5 |
−0.02 (−0.22, 0.18) 4 |
Low-fat | |||
| −0.37 (−0.68, −0.05) 3 |
−0.33 (−0.70, 0.03) 4 |
−0.12 (−0.66, 0.42) 4 |
−0.25 (−0.59, 0.08) 4 |
−0.14 (−0.82, 0.54) 5 |
−0.36 (−0.66, −0.05) 2 |
−0.33 (−0.66, −0.01) 4 |
Low CHO high-fat | ||
| −0.27 (−0.88, 0.34) 5 |
−0.24 (−0.87, 0.39) 5 |
−0.03 (−0.78, 0.73) 4 |
−0.16 (−0.78, 0.46) 5 |
−0.04 (−0.25, 0.16) 5 |
−0.26 (−0.88, 0.36) 5 |
−0.24 (−0.86, 0.38) 5 |
0.09 (−0.58, 0.76) 5 |
High GI/GL | |
| −0.29 (−0.41, −0.16) 3 |
−0.25 (−0.47, −0.04) 3 |
−0.04 (−0.50, 0.42) 4 |
−0.17 (−0.33, −0.02) 3 |
−0.06 (−0.67, 0.55) 5 |
−0.28 (−0.44, −0.12) 3 |
−0.26 (−0.41, −0.11) 3 |
0.08 (−0.22, 0.38) 3 |
−0.01 (−0.61, 0.58) 5 |
Western habitual |
1 The values correspond to the mean difference (95% CI) in LDL cholesterol (mmol/L) between the column dietary pattern and the row dietary pattern; column minus row. 2 CINeMA (Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis) ratings were high. 3 CINeMA ratings were moderate. 4 CINeMA ratings were low. 5 CINeMA ratings were very low. Abbreviations: CHO, carbohydrate; DASH, Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension; DG, dietary guidelines; GI/GL, glycemic index/glycemic load.