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.

Low-Carbohydrate Diets in the Management of Obesity and Type 2 Diabetes: A Review from Clinicians Using the Approach in Practice

“…Consumption greater than 230 g per day is consistent with no restriction of carbohydrate, although we find that many of our patients with diabetes or obesity exceed several times this amount on a daily basis. In general, the greater the degree of carbohydrate restriction, the greater the degree of ketogenesis, such that carbohydrate intakes of more than 50 g per day are not usually sufficient for ketogenesis [10]. Hence, "low-carbohydrate" and "ketogenic" are not synonymous dietary terms, but do overlap.…”

“…Meal replacement programs can achieve typical initial weight loss of this magnitude and improve glycemic control [5,9] but weight regain can limit their longer-term efficacy [7,10]. Though usually well tolerated, these may have side effects, including constipation, dizziness, alopecia, headache, and cholelithiasis [11].…”

A novel risk assessment model of contrast‐induced nephropathy after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with diabetes

“…Diabetes diagnostic criteria were related to a history of DM and fasting blood glucose ≥7.0 mmol or HbA1c ≥ 6.5% (48 mmol/mol) during hospitalization. 16 In our study, CIN was defined as an increase of either 25% or 0.5 mg/dL (44.2 µmol/L) in SCr within 72 h after contrast exposure according to the Contrast Media Safety Committee (CMSC). 17 The echocardiography was performed to evaluate cardiac function including LVEF at admission.…”

Scutellarin Reduce the Homocysteine Level and Alleviate Liver Injury in Type 2 Diabetes Model

“…As the changes of living standard and the dietary structure, there are approximately 425 million people worldwide with diabetes (Hallberg et al, 2019b). The diseases induced by these factors have now spread all over the world, and have no trend of remission (Hallberg et al, 2019a). Currently, approximately 79% of adults with diabetes live in low-and middle-income countries (Misra et al, 2019).…”