Clinical evidence dossier
Lifestyle intervention for prediabetes
Fasting Plasma Glucose (FPG)
Evidence signal
Evidence signal
Strong
This is an authoritative evidence signal supplied by Clinical Reference. It is not a formal clinical grade, treatment recommendation, or pooled effect estimate.
Evidence snapshot
- Authoritative support records
- 4
- Supporting studies available for review
- 4
- Randomized trials
- 3
- Reported effects
- 7
Clinical conclusion
Lifestyle intervention for prediabetes shows a moderate positive evidence signal for improving Fasting Plasma Glucose (FPG) across the studied comparisons.
The conclusion and evidence-signal classification are distinct authoritative fields and are reproduced as published.
Observed effects
Evidence composition
- Non-randomized studies
- 0
- Other designs
- 0
- Unresolved designs
- 1
- Magnitude-eligible effects
- 0
Consistency
Consistency classification
Mixed
- Positive
- 2
- No effect
- 0
- Mixed
- 0
- Negative
- 2
Population and applicability
Structured population data were available for 4 of 4 supporting studies. 1 study described participants with type 2 diabetes. 3 studies described adult participants.
This population information refers to the materialized supporting studies available for review. Omitted support records remain part of the authoritative support accounting and are available through the audit experience.
View reported population descriptions
These descriptions are reported across the supporting studies; they are not a single synthesized population.
- Young Adult (19–39)
- Middle Aged (40-64)
- Male
- Female
- with T2 Diabetes
- Adults diagnosed with prediabetes.
- Individuals seeking lifestyle changes to manage diabetes risk.
- Individuals at high risk for type 2 diabetes.
- Participants enrolled in lifestyle intervention programs.
- Adults participating in workplace wellness programs
- Individuals at risk for metabolic syndrome
- Participants seeking lifestyle modifications for weight management
Limitations
- Upstream consistency scoring indicates mixed findings across the evidence.
- 1 supporting study has high, serious, critical, unclear, or unavailable risk-of-bias information.
- 2 studies contain conflicting p-value and significance fields; those significance claims are suppressed.
Supporting evidence
Inspect the authoritative studies and omitted support records for this dossier.