Clinical evidence dossier
Lifestyle intervention for prediabetes
2-hour plasma glucose
Evidence signal
Authoritative 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
- 3
- Supporting studies available for review
- 3
- Randomized trials
- 1
- Reported effects
- 4
Clinical conclusion
Lifestyle intervention for prediabetes has a small positive evidence signal for 2-hour plasma glucose, but the clinical interpretation is limited.
The conclusion and evidence-signal classification are distinct authoritative fields and are reproduced as published.
Observed effects
Evidence composition
- Non-randomized studies
- 1
- Other designs
- 0
- Unresolved designs
- 1
- Magnitude-eligible effects
- 0
Consistency
Authoritative consistency classification
mostly_consistent
- Positive
- 2
- No effect
- 0
- Mixed
- 0
- Negative
- 1
Population and applicability
Structured population data were available for 3 of 3 supporting studies. 1 study described participants with type 2 diabetes. 2 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.
- Adults aged 18-65 years with prediabetes in two sub-urban communities in Seremban, Malaysia
- Adults with non-diabetic hyperglycaemia (NDH/prediabetes) identified via two-stage risk score screening, aged 40-75 y (white European) or 25-75 y (South Asian)
- Individuals at high risk for type 2 diabetes.
- Participants enrolled in lifestyle intervention programs.
Limitations
- 1 relevant study has unresolved authoritative design evidence and does not contribute to design-specific or RoB-specific claims.
- 1 supporting study does not have a displayable topic-matched quantitative effect.
- 2 supporting studies have high, serious, critical, unclear, or unavailable risk-of-bias information.
- 1 study contains conflicting p-value and significance fields; those significance claims are suppressed.
Supporting evidence
Inspect the authoritative studies and omitted support records for this dossier.