Responses

Download PDFPDF

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:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses [https://authors.bmj.com/after-submitting/rapid-responses/].
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses [https://www.bmj.com/company/journals-terms-and-conditions-for-rapid-responses/] and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice [https://www.bmj.com/company/your-privacy/].
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

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.