Dataset Information

Improving the scientific rigour of nutritional recommendations for adults with type 2 diabetes: A comprehensive review of the American Diabetes Association guideline-recommended eating patterns.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

The global rate of type 2 diabetes (T2D) continues to rise. Guidelines that influence the worldwide treatment of this disease are central to changing this trajectory. We sought in this review to evaluate the appropriateness of sources cited in the American Diabetes Association's (ADA) guidelines on eating patterns for T2D management, identify additional relevant sources, and evaluate the evidence.

Materials and methods

We reviewed the evidence behind the ADA's recommendations on eating patterns in the 2018 and 2019 ADA Standards of Care and the 2014 ADA Nutrition Therapy Recommendations for Adults with Diabetes. Additionally, we conducted a comprehensive search to identify any additional studies not included in the cited evidence. To determine appropriateness of inclusion in the guidelines, the following criteria were applied: 1) it was a clinical trial or systematic review/meta-analysis of clinical trials; 2) it involved persons with T2D; 3) one of the study arms followed one of the eating patterns currently recommended; 4) its reported outcomes included glycaemic control; 5) outcomes were reported separately for persons with T2D.

Results

We found a wide variation in the evidence for each eating pattern. Issues that have hampered the guideline process include: lack of a rigorous literature review, resulting in the omission of pertinent studies; an overreliance on prospective cohort studies; inconsistent standards for evidence; inclusion of studies not on persons with T2D; and bias.

Conclusions

The ADA Guidelines recommended eating patterns fall short of rigorous standards of scientific review according to state-of-the-art systematic review and guideline creation practices.

SUBMITTER: Hallberg SJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6767093 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Little is known regarding the durability of clinical practice guideline recommendations over time.To characterize variations in the durability of class I ("procedure/treatment should be performed/administered") American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guideline recommendations.Textual analysis by 4 independent reviewers of 11 guidelines published between 1998 and 2007 and revised between 2006 and 2013.We abstracted all class I recommendations from the first of the 2 most recent versions of each guideline and identified corresponding recommendations in the subsequent version. We classified recommendations replaced by less determinate or contrary recommendations as having been downgraded or reversed; we classified recommendations for which no corresponding item could be identified as having been omitted. We tested for differences in the durability of recommendations according to guideline topic and underlying level of evidence using bivariable hypothesis tests and conditional logistic regression.Of 619 index recommendations, 495 (80.0%; 95% CI, 76.6%-83.1%) were retained in the subsequent guideline version, 57 (9.2%; 95% CI, 7.0%-11.8%) were downgraded or reversed, and 67 (10.8%; 95% CI, 8.4%-13.3%) were omitted. The percentage of recommendations retained varied across guidelines from 15.4% (95% CI, 1.9%-45.4%) to 94.1% (95% CI, 80.3%-99.3%; P?<?.001). Among recommendations with available information on level of evidence, 90.5% (95% CI, 83.2%-95.3%) of recommendations supported by multiple randomized studies were retained, vs 81.0% (95% CI, 74.8%-86.3%) of recommendations supported by 1 randomized trial or observational data and 73.7% (95% CI, 65.8%-80.5%) of recommendations supported by opinion (P?=?.001). After accounting for guideline-level factors, the probability of being downgraded, reversed, or omitted was greater for recommendations based on opinion (odds ratio, 3.14; 95% CI, 1.69-5.85; P?<?.001) or on 1 trial or observational data (odds ratio, 3.49; 95% CI, 1.45-8.41; P?=?.005) vs recommendations based on multiple trials.The durability of class I cardiology guideline recommendations for procedures and treatments promulgated by the ACC/AHA varied across individual guidelines and levels of evidence. Downgrades, reversals, and omissions were most common among recommendations not supported by multiple randomized studies.

Project description:Background: There is a significant lack of consistency used to determine the scientific validity of nutrigenetic research. The aims of this study were to examine existing frameworks used for determining scientific validity in nutrition and/or genetics and to determine which framework would be most appropriate to evaluate scientific validity in nutrigenetics in the future. Methods: A systematic review (PROSPERO registration: CRD42021261948) was conducted up until July 2021 using Medline, Embase, and Web of Science, with articles screened in duplicate. Gray literature searches were also conducted (June-July 2021), and reference lists of two relevant review articles were screened. Included articles provided the complete methods for a framework that has been used to evaluate scientific validity in nutrition and/or genetics. Articles were excluded if they provided a framework for evaluating health services/systems more broadly. Citing articles of the included articles were then screened in Google Scholar to determine if the framework had been used in nutrition or genetics, or both; frameworks that had not were excluded. Summary tables were piloted in duplicate and revised accordingly prior to synthesizing all included articles. Frameworks were critically appraised for their applicability to nutrigenetic scientific validity assessment using a predetermined categorization matrix, which included key factors deemed important by an expert panel for assessing scientific validity in nutrigenetics. Results: Upon screening 3,931 articles, a total of 49 articles representing 41 total frameworks, were included in the final analysis (19 used in genetics, 9 used in nutrition, and 13 used in both). Factors deemed important for evaluating nutrigenetic evidence related to study design and quality, generalizability, directness, consistency, precision, confounding, effect size, biological plausibility, publication/funding bias, allele and nutrient dose-response, and summary levels of evidence. Frameworks varied in the components of their scientific validity assessment, with most assessing study quality. Consideration of biological plausibility was more common in frameworks used in genetics. Dose-response effects were rarely considered. Two included frameworks incorporated all but one predetermined key factor important for nutrigenetic scientific validity assessment. Discussion/Conclusions: A single existing framework was highlighted as optimal for the rigorous evaluation of scientific validity in nutritional genomics, and minor modifications are proposed to strengthen it further. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=261948, PROSPERO [CRD42021261948].

Project description:BACKGROUND:The uptake of guideline recommendations that improve heart failure (HF) outcomes remains suboptimal. We reviewed implementation interventions that improve physician adherence to these recommendations, and identified contextual factors associated with implementation success. METHODS:We searched databases from January 1990 to November 2017 for studies testing interventions to improve uptake of class I HF guidelines. We used the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care and Process Redesign frameworks for data extraction. Primary outcomes included: proportion of eligible patients offered guideline-recommended pharmacotherapy, self-care education, left ventricular function assessment and/or intracardiac devices. We reported clinical outcomes when available. RESULTS:We included 38 studies. Provider-level interventions (n=13 studies) included audit and feedback, reminders and education. Organisation-level interventions (n=18) included medical records system changes, multidisciplinary teams, clinical pathways and continuity of care. System-level interventions (n=3) included provider/institutional incentives. Four studies assessed multi-level interventions. We could not perform meta-analyses due to statistical/conceptual heterogeneity. Thirty-two studies reported significant improvements in at least one primary outcome. Clinical pathways, multidisciplinary teams and multifaceted interventions were most consistently successful in increasing physician uptake of guidelines. Among randomised controlled trials (RCT) (n=10), pharmacist and nurse-led interventions improved target dose prescriptions. Eleven studies reported clinical outcomes; significant improvements were reported in three, including a clinical pathway, a multidisciplinary team and a multifaceted intervention. Baseline assessment of barriers, staff training, iterative intervention development, leadership commitment and policy/financial incentives were associated with intervention effectiveness. Most studies (n=20) had medium risk of bias; nine RCTs had low risk of bias. CONCLUSION:Our study is limited by the quality and heterogeneity of the primary studies. Clinical pathways, multidisciplinary teams and multifaceted interventions appear to be most consistent in increasing guideline uptake. However, improvements in process outcomes were rarely accompanied by improvements in clinical outcomes. Our work highlights the need for improved research methodology to reliably assess the effectiveness of implementation interventions.

Project description:The uptake of Clinical Practice Guideline (CPG) recommendations that improve outcomes in heart failure (HF) remains suboptimal. We will conduct a systematic review to identify implementation strategies that improve physician adherence to class I recommendations, those with clear evidence that benefits outweigh the risks. We will use American, Canadian and European HF guidelines as our reference.We will conduct a literature search in the databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, HEALTHSTAR, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Campbell Collaboration, Joanna Briggs Institute Evidence Based Practice, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and Evidence Based Practice Centres. We will include prospective studies evaluating implementation interventions aimed at improving uptake of class I CPG recommendations in HF. We will extract data in duplicate. We will classify interventions according to their level of application (ie, provider, organisation, systems level) and common underlying characteristics (eg, education, decision-support, financial incentives) using the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Taxonomy. We will assess the impact of the intervention on adherence to the CPGs. Outcomes will include proportion of eligible patients who were: prescribed a CPG-recommended pharmacological treatment; referred for device consideration; provided self-care education at discharge; and provided left ventricular function assessment. We will include clinical outcomes such as hospitalisations, readmissions and mortality, if data is available. We will identify the common elements of successful and failing interventions, and examine the context in which they were applied, using the Process Redesign contextual framework. We will synthesise the results narratively and, if appropriate, will pool results for meta-analysis.In this review, we will assess the impact of implementation strategies and contextual factors on physician adherence to HF CPGs. We will explore why some interventions may succeed in one setting and fail in another. We will disseminate our findings through briefing reports, publications and presentations.CRD42015017155.