METHOD: The meta-analysis included all studies that examined the effect of prebiotic, probiotic, and synbiotic supplements on one or more renal function parameters and had a control group. We searched July 1967 through to March 2016 MEDLINE, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases.
RESULTS: Of 437 studies, 13 were eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis. GFR levels tended to be reduced; whereas creatinine levels increased in the intervention group compared with the placebo group, both in a non-significant manner. The pooled effect on BUN demonstrated a significant decline compared with the placebo group (MD, -1.72 mmol/L; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.93 to -0.51; P = 0.005). Urea significantly decreased after intervention (-0.46 mmol/L; 95% CI, -0.60 to -0.32; P <0.0001). The UA levels significantly increased in the intervention group compared with the placebo group (12.28 µmol/L; 95% CI, 0.85-23.71; P = 0.035).
CONCLUSION: This study showed a significant increase in UA and a decrease in urea and BUN. The use of prebiotic, probiotic, and synbiotic supplements among those with compromised renal function or those at risk for renal failure should be limited until large-scale, well-designed randomized controlled trials prove the safety and efficacy of these supplements in improving renal function.
METHODS: A total of 104 patients with lifestyle-controlled gestational diabetes (GDMA1) were randomized to 2-weekly or weekly 4-point per day (fasting on awakening and 2-h post-meals) SMBG. Primary outcome was the change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) level from enrollment to 36 weeks of pregnancy across trial arms. The non-inferiority margin was an HbA1c increase of 0.2%.
RESULTS: The mean difference for change in HbA1c from enrollment to 36 weeks was 0.003% (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.098% to +0.093%), within the 0.2% non-inferiority margin. The change in HbA1c level increased significantly within both trial arms-0.275% ± 0.241% (P
METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (via PubMed) and Science Direct databases for articles that included the component of nutrition for adult patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), published in English between 2010 and 2020.
RESULTS: Fourteen studies met the criteria. Eight of 14 studies had an intervention with a control arm. In comparison to the control group, all studies (n = 8) showed a reduction in hypoglycemic events. However, only half of these studies (n = 4) had shown at least one positive clinical outcome. Features of nutrition therapy that appeared to have favorable clinical outcomes include individualized caloric prescription; distributing carbohydrates equally between Suhoor, Iftar and snacks; providing meal plans; adjusting food intake to suit Ramadan; and incorporating diabetes-specific formula as part of Suhoor or snack.
CONCLUSIONS: The review provides evidence for the effectiveness of Ramadan-focused nutrition therapy among people with T2D and identifies key features of nutrition therapy that may provide favourable clinical outcomes. Additional data on dietary quality and adequacy during Ramadan fasting warrants further studies.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted on a total of 57 dietetic interns and 99 patients from primary and tertiary health care settings. The dietetic interns completed the Toronto Empathy Questionnaire (TEQ) while the Consultation and Relational Empathy (CARE) measure was self-administered by patients. Socio-demographic information of participants was collected.
RESULTS: The dietetic interns' mean (standard deviation [SD]) TEQ scores were 46.90 ± 5.28 and 47.78 ± 5.34 in primary and tertiary care, respectively. CARE measure scores rated by patients in the primary care were 38.61 ± 8.38 and for tertiary setting, the scores were slightly higher (39.47 ± 7.65). The settings, gender, ethnicity and period of internship did not affect dietetic interns' empathy level. In primary care, CARE scores were significantly different between patients' age grouping (P = 0.007).
CONCLUSIONS: Findings from the present study showed that patients' age significantly affected their perception of dietetic interns' empathy in primary health care. These preliminary findings could facilitate an understanding of the level of empathy amongst interns for consideration in the future design of dietetic training.
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review and critically appraise medical nutrition therapy guidelines for treating patients with gestational diabetes mellitus.
DESIGN: We searched Medline, the Cochrane Library, Guidelines International Network, and Google Scholar to retrieve clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for medical nutrition therapy in gestational diabetes mellitus from professional or governmental organizations, published in English, between January 1, 2007, and November 24, 2018. CPGs were reviewed and appraised using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research, and Evaluation II instrument.
RESULTS: Of 1,286 retrieved articles, 21 CPGs fulfilled the inclusion criteria. CPGs of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, Diabetes Canada, and Malaysia Health Technology Assessment Section received the greatest overall scores and the highest scores concerning rigor of recommendations development. Many CPGs failed to involve multidisciplinary teams in their development, including patients, and often, dietitians. Applicability of the recommendations was low, lacking facilitators and tools to enhance implementation. Many CPGs demonstrated low editorial independence by failing to disclose funding and competing interests. More medical nutrition therapy recommendations were incorporated in the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and Malaysia Health Technology Assessment Section CPGs. The Malaysia Health Technology Assessment Section, Diabetes Canada, Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, and Endocrine Society guidelines were recommended by the review panel herein without modifications. Overall, the CPGs suggested the consumption of adequate protein and the selection of foods with low glycemic index, divided into three main meals and two to four snacks. Weight gain recommendations were mostly based on the Institute of Medicine body mass index thresholds.
CONCLUSIONS: With few exceptions, the main developmental limitations of the appraised CPGs involved low rigor of recommendations development, lack of multidisciplinary stakeholder involvement, low applicability, and inadequate editorial independence. This indicates a need for developing more clear, unbiased, practical, and evidence-based CPGs.
METHODS: We randomized 108 overweight and obese patients with T2D (46 M/62F; age 60 ± 10 years; HbA1c 8.07 ± 1.05%; weight 101.4 ± 21.1 kg and BMI 35.2 ± 7.7 kg/m2) into three groups. Group A met with RDN to develop an individualized eating plan. Group B met with RDN and followed a structured meal plan. Group C did similar to group B and received weekly phone support by RDN.
RESULTS: After 16 weeks, all three groups had a significant reduction of their energy intake compared to baseline. HbA1c did not change from baseline in group A, but decreased significantly in groups B (- 0.66%, 95% CI -1.03 to - 0.30) and C (- 0.61%, 95% CI -1.0 to - 0.23) (p value for difference among groups over time
METHODS: This is a pragmatic randomized control trial study where elective admitted patients will be randomly divided into the intervention (SS) or control (NN) group. All data will be collected during a face-to-face interview, anthropometric measurement, blood sampling (albumin, white blood count, hemoglobin, and c-reactive protein), handgrip strength, and postoperative complications. Group SS will be receiving a tailored lifestyle and intensively supplemented with oral nutrition support as compared to Group NN that will receive standard medical care. The primary outcome for this study is the length of stay in the hospital. Additional outcome measures are changes in biochemical profile and nutritional and functional status. The effects of intervention between groups on the outcome parameters will be analyzed by using the SPSS General Linear Model (GLM) for the repeated measure procedure.
DISCUSSION: The intervention implemented in this study will serve as baseline data in providing appropriate nutritional management in patients undergoing gastrointestinal and oncological surgery.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Protocol Registration and Results System (PRS) NCT04347772 . Registered on 20 November 2019.