The Effect of Liquid Meal Replacements on Cardiometabolic Risk Factors in Overweight/Obese Individuals With Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The evidence for liquid meal replacements in diabetes has not been summarized. Our objective was to synthesize the evidence of the effect of liquid meal replacements on cardiometabolic risk factors in overweight/obese individuals with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Data sources included MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library through 10 December 2018. We included randomized trials of ≥2 weeks assessing the effect of liquid meal replacements in weight loss diets compared with traditional weight loss diets on cardiometabolic risk factors in overweight/obese subjects with type 2 diabetes. Two independent reviewers extracted relevant data and assessed risk of bias. Data were pooled using the inverse variance method. The overall certainty of the evidence was evaluated using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). RESULTS Nine trial comparisons (N = 961 [median follow-up 24 weeks]) met eligibility criteria. Mean differences were for body weight −2.37 kg (95% CI −3.30 to −1.44), BMI −0.87 kg/m2 (−1.31 to −0.42), body fat −1.66% (−2.17 to −1.15), waist circumference −2.24 cm (−3.72 to −0.77), HbA1c −0.43% (−0.66 to −0.19) (−4.7 mmol/mol [−7.2 to −2.1]), fasting glucose −0.63 mmol/L (−0.99 to −0.27), fasting insulin −11.83 pmol/L (−23.11 to −0.54), systolic blood pressure −4.97mmHg (−7.32 to −2.62), and diastolic blood pressure −1.98 mmHg (−3.05 to −0.91). There was no effect on blood lipids. The overall certainty of the evidence was low to moderate owing to imprecision and/or inconsistency. CONCLUSIONS Liquid meal replacements in weight loss diets lead to modest reductions in body weight, BMI, and systolic blood pressure, and reductions of marginal clinical significance in body fat, waist circumference, HbA1c, fasting glucose, fasting insulin, and diastolic blood pressure. More high-quality trials are needed to improve the certainty in our estimates.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.117 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".