Lifestyle Factors that Improve Metabolic Syndrome Components
Recruitment
Design
Blinding used (if applicable)
Intervention (if applicable)
Statistical Analysis
Timing of Measurements
N/A
Dependent Variables
- Variable 1: brief description (how measured?)
- Variable 2: brief description (how measured?)
- etc
Independent Variables
Control Variables
N/A
Initial N: (e.g., 731 (298 males, 433 females))
Attrition (final N):
Age:
Ethnicity:
Other relevant demographics:
Anthropometrics (e.g., were groups same or different on important measures)
Location:
Identified 3 potential etiologic categories: obesity, insulin resistance and constellation of independent risk factors
Management of Underlying Risk Factors
-the risk factors that promote the development of the MS are overweight/obesity, physical inactivity, and an atherogenic diet.
-first line of therapy should be lifestyle modification (weight loss and physical activity)
Management of overweight and obesity
-Reduce caloric intake and increased physical activity:
-Crash diets/extreme diets don't work. More effective and healthful for long-term weight loss
and 500 to 1000 calorie/day restrictions
-Realistic goal is to reduce body weight by 7-10% over 6-12 months
-Long-term maintenance is best achieved when regular exercise is included in the weight
loss regimen
-Emphasis should be given to eating habits, social support, stress management and regular
exercise.
Management of physical inactivity
-Daily minimum of 30 minutes of moderate-intensity physical activity, increasing the level
(1 hour/day) appears to be more beneficial, especially for weight control
-To help initiate activity, suggestions to start with 10-15 bouts of activity
Dietary Modification
-Diet composition consistent with general dietary recommendations: low intake of SF, trans-
fat and cholesterol; reduced consumption of simple sugars; increased intake of fruits and
vegetables, and whole grains.
-Further research needed to see if MS pts will benefit from a shift to more unsaturated fatty
acids and less carbohydrates
|
Variables |
Treatment Group Measures and confidence intervals |
Control group Measures and confidence intervals |
Statistical Significance of Group Difference |
|
Dep var 1 |
Mean, CI. e.g., 4.5±2.2 |
Mean, CI. e.g., 1.5±2.0 |
Stat signif difference between groups e.g., p=.002 |
|
Dep var 2 |
|
|
|
|
etc |
|
|
|
Other Findings
Lifestyle modification leading to weight reduction and increased physical activity represents first-line clinical therapy. Smoking cessation is paramount. A realistic goal for weight loss is to reduce body weight by 7-10% over 6 months to 1 year. Weight reduction should be combined with a daily minimum of 30 minutes of moderate-intensity activity. Nutritional therapy calls for a low intake of SF, trans-fatty acids and cholesterol; reduced consumption of simple sugars; and increased fruits and vegetables and whole grains. Extremes in intakes of either carbohydrate or fats should be avoided.
Many limitations due to the nature of the paper.
|
Quality Criteria Checklist: Review Articles
|
|||
| Relevance Questions | |||
| 1. | Will the answer if true, have a direct bearing on the health of patients? | Yes | |
| 2. | Is the outcome or topic something that patients/clients/population groups would care about? | Yes | |
| 3. | Is the problem addressed in the review one that is relevant to dietetics practice? | Yes | |
| 4. | Will the information, if true, require a change in practice? | Yes | |
| Validity Questions | |||
| 1. | Was the question for the review clearly focused and appropriate? | Yes | |
| 2. | Was the search strategy used to locate relevant studies comprehensive? Were the databases searched and the search termsused described? | No | |
| 3. | Were explicit methods used to select studies to include in the review? Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified andappropriate? Wereselectionmethods unbiased? | No | |
| 4. | Was there an appraisal of the quality and validity of studies included in the review? Were appraisal methodsspecified,appropriate, andreproducible? | No | |
| 5. | Were specific treatments/interventions/exposures described? Were treatments similar enough to be combined? | No | |
| 6. | Was the outcome of interest clearly indicated? Were other potential harms and benefits considered? | No | |
| 7. | Were processes for data abstraction, synthesis, and analysis described? Were they applied consistently acrossstudies and groups? Was thereappropriate use of qualitative and/or quantitative synthesis? Was variation in findings among studies analyzed? Were heterogeneity issued considered? If data from studies were aggregated for meta-analysis, was the procedure described? | No | |
| 8. | Are the results clearly presented in narrative and/or quantitative terms? If summary statistics are used, are levels ofsignificance and/or confidence intervals included? | Yes | |
| 9. | Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? Are limitations ofthe review identified anddiscussed? | No | |
| 10. | Was bias due to the review's funding or sponsorship unlikely? | Yes | |