Dietary Patterns and Cardiometabolic Outcomes in Diabetes: A Summary of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Diabetes and Nutrition Study Group (DNSG) of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) conducted a review of existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses to explain the relationship between different dietary patterns and patient-important cardiometabolic outcomes. To update the clinical practice guidelines for nutrition therapy in the prevention and management of diabetes, we summarize the evidence from these evidence syntheses for the Mediterranean, Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH), Portfolio, Nordic, liquid meal replacement, and vegetarian dietary patterns. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the quality of evidence. We summarized the evidence for disease incidence outcomes and risk factor outcomes using risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), respectively. The Mediterranean diet showed a cardiovascular disease (CVD) incidence (RR: 0.62; 95%CI, 0.50, 0.78), and non-significant CVD mortality (RR: 0.67; 95%CI, 0.45, 1.00) benefit. The DASH dietary pattern improved cardiometabolic risk factors (P < 0.05) and was associated with the decreased incidence of CVD (RR, 0.80; 95%CI, 0.76, 0.85). Vegetarian dietary patterns were associated with improved cardiometabolic risk factors (P < 0.05) and the reduced incidence (0.72; 95%CI: 0.61, 0.85) and mortality (RR, 0.78; 95%CI, 0.69, 0.88) of coronary heart disease. The Portfolio dietary pattern improved cardiometabolic risk factors and reduced estimated 10-year coronary heart disease (CHD) risk by 13% (−1.34% (95%CI, −2.19 to −0.49)). The Nordic dietary pattern was correlated with decreased CVD (0.93 (95%CI, 0.88, 0.99)) and stroke incidence (0.87 (95%CI, 0.77, 0.97)) and, along with liquid meal replacements, improved cardiometabolic risk factors (P < 0.05). The evidence was assessed as low to moderate certainty for most dietary patterns and outcome pairs. Current evidence suggests that the Mediterranean, DASH, Portfolio, Nordic, liquid meal replacement and vegetarian dietary patterns have cardiometabolic advantages in populations inclusive of diabetes.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.025 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.044 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".