Responses

PDF

Systematic review and meta-analysis of dietary carbohydrate restriction in patients with type 2 diabetes
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

  • Published on:
    Methodological considerations of a systematic review and meta-analysis: dietary carbohydrate restriction in patients with type 2 diabetes
    • Rosemary E Huntriss, Specialist Diabetes Dietitian Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
    • Other Contributors:
      • Malcolm Campbell, Lecturer in Statistics

    Thank you to the authors for addressing a relevant and interesting area of research (Snorgaard et al., 2017).

    The review was well planned, but the methodology lacks detail that enables the reader to understand the processes involved in the completion of the meta-analysis and some study limitations were not described.

    Please could the authors clarify why the meta-analyses use both mean change from baseline and mean final value in the same meta-analysis (see Figure 2 and Figure 3 where the lower means indicate change from baseline and the higher means indicate unadjusted final values)? Also, could it be clarified why the selected arms from the three-arm trials were chosen over the arms that were omitted? Although the population, intervention and outcomes were defined in the methodology, the comparator was not.

    Furthermore, when using the mean final HbA1c value in the meta-analyses, papers such as Krebs et al. (2012) and Guldbrand et al. (2012) have higher baseline HbA1cs in the lower-carbohydrate group, which was not mentioned in the paper, nor mentioned as a limitation to the meta-analysis. Guldbrand et al. (2012) demonstrate that HbA1c remained the same at two years (the time point the authors refer to) in the lower-carbohydrate arm but increased in the comparator arm by 0.2%. Therefore the low-carbohydrate arm was the superior intervention; however, the forest plot (Figure 3) suggests that the control intervention was slightly but not significant...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.