Structured population data were available for 8 of 8 supporting studies. 4 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 8 studies described adult participants.

1 relevant study has unresolved authoritative design evidence and does not contribute to design-specific or RoB-specific claims.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: baseline_within_group, unknown_unresolved, usual_care.

2 supporting studies have high, serious, critical, unclear, or unavailable risk-of-bias information.

Core clinician-reference fields are available or not applicable.

Twelve group-based sessions and two individual counselling sessions over 12 months, delivered by trained community volunteers

Co-HELP community-based lifestyle intervention

Usual care

Authoritative quality diagnostic: invalid confidence interval.

Community lifestyle programme improves multiple diabetes risk factors in adults with prediabetes

Participants received usual care supplemented by a culture-specific behavior modification program implemented through interactive classes and an online web application.

Culture-specific behavior modification program

The intervention group received the usual care supplemented by a culture-specific behavior modification programm implemented through interactive classes and online web application consisting of information, motivation, and behavioral skills (diet, exercise, and medication use).

Participants received the usual treatment, which comprised an educational session provided by a nurse at the PCU.

The control group received the usual care.

Authoritative quality diagnostic: invalid or missing unit.

Authoritative quality diagnostic: invalid or missing value.

Culture-Specific Program Improves Blood Sugar and Pressure in Diabetics

6-h session at baseline followed by 3-h refresher sessions at 12 and 24 mo; 15-min telephone call every 3 mo

Let's Prevent Diabetes programme (intervention)

Standard care

Engagement in a prediabetes education programme is linked to lower type 2 diabetes risk

Not extracted from the authoritative source.

Clinician-reference record is usable with limitations in: arms, comparator.

Intensive lifestyle intervention improves diabetes remission in India

Not applicable to this study design or comparison.

Source evidence could not be resolved sufficiently for this field.

Clinician-reference record is usable with limitations in: design, risk_of_bias.

A comprehensive lifestyle intervention aimed at achieving diabetes remission in a patient with type 2 diabetes.

Intensive Lifestyle Intervention

This case involved a 64-year-old man with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who underwent radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma. He consented to a 1-year intensive lifestyle intervention (ILI), including a vegan diet (to lower calorie intake, reduce uric acid, support renal health, and promote weight loss), intermittent fasting, regular exercise, psychological support, and medical management.

Authoritative quality diagnostic: source evidence unresolved.

Intensive lifestyle intervention may reverse diabetes in nephrectomy patients

Usual Care

Patients received an individualized exercise schedule, nutritional recommendations, and health literacy training with regular feedback.

Lifestyle Intervention

Each patient who was randomized to the lifestyle intervention group received an individualized exercise schedule including endurance (primarily walking and/or cycling, depending on patient preference) and strength training with the aim to progressively increase training duration to ≥150 min per week.

Patients received one-time written standard recommendations on nutrition and physical activity according to current guidelines.

In contrast, patients randomized to usual care did not receive active intervention but received one-time written standard recommendations on nutrition and physical activity according to current guidelines.

Telemedicine lifestyle intervention modestly improves glycemic control in diabetes

Care as usual

Received telemedical devices and telephone coaching over a period of 12 months.

Telemedically-assisted lifestyle intervention with telephone coaching

Intervention Group (IG; N=86, 80.2% male, mean age: 59.7) received telemedical devices and telephone coaching over a period of 12 months.

Control Group (CG; N=65, 83.1% male, mean age: 58.8) received care as usual.

Telemedicine support improves diabetes control

Standard care diabetes education (DE)

Participants received a structured diabetes education programme via two one-to-one telephone calls with a registered dietitian and free membership of Weight Watchers for 6 months.

Tailored diabetes education and behavioural weight management programme (DEW)

Participants randomised to DEW (the ‘intervention’) received a structured diabetes education programme via two one-to-one telephone calls with a registered dietitian (provided by WW) and free membership of WW for 6 months.

Participants attended a 6 h diabetes education workshop delivered by trained healthcare professionals in local healthcare or community venues.

Participants allocated to DE (‘control’) attended a 6 h diabetes education workshop (DESMOND) delivered by two trained healthcare professionals in local healthcare or community venues in groups of up to ten participants.

Weight management program shows little effect on HbA1c but aids weight loss.

Structured population data were available for 3 of 3 supporting studies. 1 study described participants with type 2 diabetes. 3 studies described adult participants.

Structured population data were available for 3 of 3 supporting studies. 2 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 3 studies described adult participants.

1 supporting study does not have a displayable topic-matched quantitative effect.

1 study contains conflicting p-value and significance fields; those significance claims are suppressed.

Structured population data were available for 4 of 4 supporting studies. 3 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 4 studies described adult participants.

Upstream consistency scoring indicates mixed findings across the evidence.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: active_comparator, usual_care.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: baseline_within_group, usual_care.

2 supporting studies do not have a displayable topic-matched quantitative effect.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: active_comparator, unknown_unresolved.

3 supporting studies have high, serious, critical, unclear, or unavailable risk-of-bias information.

Structured population data were available for 4 of 4 supporting studies. 4 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 4 studies described adult participants.

Structured population data were available for 5 of 5 supporting studies. Diabetes type was heterogeneous: 2 studies with type 1 diabetes, 1 studies with type 2 diabetes. Age groups were heterogeneous: 2 studies with adult participants, 1 studies with youth participants.

2 relevant studies have unresolved authoritative design evidence and do not contribute to design-specific or RoB-specific claims.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: baseline_within_group, other, usual_care.

4 of 5 studies with duration data have follow-up of 12 weeks or less.

Structured population data were available for 10 of 11 supporting studies. Diabetes type was heterogeneous: 5 studies with type 2 diabetes, 2 studies with type 1 diabetes. 8 studies described adult participants.

3 relevant studies have unresolved authoritative design evidence and do not contribute to design-specific or RoB-specific claims.

3 supporting studies do not have a displayable topic-matched quantitative effect.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: active_comparator, baseline_within_group, placebo, unknown_unresolved, usual_care.

1 supporting study lacks usable structured population information.

4 supporting studies have high, serious, critical, unclear, or unavailable risk-of-bias information.

Structured population data were available for 8 of 8 supporting studies. 7 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 7 studies described adult participants.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: active_comparator, baseline_within_group, placebo.

1 supporting study has high, serious, critical, unclear, or unavailable risk-of-bias information.

Structured population data were available for 4 of 4 supporting studies. 4 studies described participants with type 1 diabetes. 2 studies described adult participants.

Structured population data were available for 8 of 8 supporting studies. 6 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 7 studies described adult participants.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: active_comparator, unknown_unresolved, usual_care.

Structured population data were available for 8 of 8 supporting studies. Diabetes type was heterogeneous: 4 studies with type 2 diabetes, 1 studies with type 1 diabetes. Age groups were heterogeneous: 4 studies with adult participants, 1 studies with youth participants.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: active_comparator, placebo, usual_care.

5 of 8 studies with duration data have follow-up of 12 weeks or less.

Structured population data were available for 3 of 3 supporting studies. 3 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 3 studies described adult participants.

3 of 3 studies with duration data have follow-up of 12 weeks or less.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: active_comparator, placebo.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: active_comparator, baseline_within_group.

Structured population data were available for 3 of 3 supporting studies. Diabetes type was heterogeneous: 1 studies with type 1 diabetes, 1 studies with type 2 diabetes. 2 studies described adult participants.

Structured population data were available for 13 of 13 supporting studies. 11 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 12 studies described adult participants.

4 relevant studies have unresolved authoritative design evidence and do not contribute to design-specific or RoB-specific claims.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: active_comparator, baseline_within_group, usual_care.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: unknown_unresolved, usual_care.

Structured population data were available for 3 of 3 supporting studies. Diabetes type was heterogeneous: 2 studies with type 2 diabetes, 1 studies with type 1 diabetes. Age groups were heterogeneous: 2 studies with adult participants, 1 studies with youth participants.

Structured population data were available for 12 of 12 supporting studies. Diabetes type was heterogeneous: 9 studies with type 2 diabetes, 1 studies with type 1 diabetes. 12 studies described adult participants.

9 supporting studies have high, serious, critical, unclear, or unavailable risk-of-bias information.

Structured population data were available for 5 of 5 supporting studies. 5 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 4 studies described adult participants.

Structured population data were available for 3 of 3 supporting studies. 2 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 2 studies described adult participants.

Structured population data were available for 2 of 3 supporting studies. 2 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 2 studies described adult participants.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: active_comparator, placebo, unknown_unresolved.

Structured population data were available for 10 of 10 supporting studies. Diabetes type was heterogeneous: 8 studies with type 2 diabetes, 2 studies with type 1 diabetes. Age groups were heterogeneous: 8 studies with adult participants, 1 studies with youth participants.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: active_comparator, other, usual_care.

3 studies contain conflicting p-value and significance fields; those significance claims are suppressed.

Structured population data were available for 4 of 4 supporting studies. 2 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 4 studies described adult participants.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: other, usual_care.

2 of 4 studies with duration data have follow-up of 12 weeks or less.

Structured population data were available for 4 of 4 supporting studies. Diabetes type was heterogeneous: 2 studies with type 2 diabetes, 1 studies with type 1 diabetes. 4 studies described adult participants.

Structured population data were available for 5 of 5 supporting studies. 5 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 5 studies described adult participants.

Structured population data were available for 11 of 11 supporting studies. 10 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 11 studies described adult participants.

Structured population data were available for 6 of 6 supporting studies. 6 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 6 studies described adult participants.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: active_comparator, baseline_within_group, unknown_unresolved, usual_care.

Structured population data were available for 7 of 7 supporting studies. Diabetes type was heterogeneous: 2 studies with type 2 diabetes, 1 studies with type 1 diabetes. 5 studies described adult participants.

Structured population data were available for 5 of 5 supporting studies. 3 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 4 studies described adult participants.

Structured population data were available for 5 of 5 supporting studies. Diabetes type was heterogeneous: 4 studies with type 2 diabetes, 1 studies with type 1 diabetes. 3 studies described adult participants.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: baseline_within_group, placebo, usual_care.

Lifestyle intervention for prediabetes

Evidence signal

Evidence snapshot

Clinical conclusion

Observed effects

Mean difference

Mean difference

Mean difference

Evidence composition

Consistency

Population and applicability

Limitations

Supporting evidence

Evidence signal

Evidence snapshot

Clinical conclusion

Observed effects

Mean difference

Mean difference

Mean difference

Evidence composition

Consistency

Population and applicability

Limitations

Related evidence

Supporting evidence