Clinical evidence dossier
Lifestyle intervention for prediabetes
Physical activity level (MET-minutes per week)
Evidence signal
Authoritative evidence signal
moderate
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
- 2
Clinical conclusion
Lifestyle intervention for prediabetes shows a strong positive evidence signal for improving Physical activity level (MET-minutes per week) 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
- 2
- Other designs
- 0
- Unresolved designs
- 0
- Magnitude-eligible effects
- 0
Consistency
Authoritative consistency classification
consistent
- Positive
- 3
- No effect
- 0
- Mixed
- 0
- Negative
- 0
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 diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes.
- Individuals seeking to improve their psychological well-being and quality of life.
- kg/m2
- FINDRISC >14 and no diagnosed diabetes
Limitations
- 1 supporting study does not have a displayable topic-matched quantitative effect.
- Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: other, usual_care.
- 1 supporting study has high, serious, critical, unclear, or unavailable risk-of-bias information.
Supporting evidence
Inspect the authoritative studies and omitted support records for this dossier.