A significant positive effect of the interventions on weight was reported by all study types .
The meta- analysis showed that lifestyle interventions achieved weight and waist circumference reductions after one year .
However , no clear effects on biochemical or clinical parameters were observed , possibly due to short follow-up periods or lack of power of the studies meta-analysed .
Changes in dietary parameters or physical activity were generally not reported .
Most studies assessing feasibility were supportive of implementation of lifestyle interventions in routine clinical care .
Conclusion Lifestyle interventions for patients at high risk of diabetes , delivered by a variety of healthcare providers in routine clinical setting s , are feasible but appear to be of limited clinical benefit one year after intervention .
Despite convincing evidence from structured intensive trials , this systematic review showed that translation into routine practice has less effect on diabetes risk reduction
Background The clinical effectiveness of intensive lifestyle interventions in preventing or delaying diabetes in people at high risk has been established from r and omised trials of structured , intensive interventions conducted in several countries over the past two decades .
The challenge is to translate them into routine clinical setting s. The objective of this review is to determine whether lifestyle interventions delivered to high-risk adult patients in routine clinical care setting s are feasible and effective in achieving reductions in risk factors for diabetes .
A checklist to evaluate a report of a nonpharmacological trial (CLEAR NPT) was developed using consensus.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE To develop a checklist of items measuring the quality of reports of r and omized clinical trials ( RCTs ) assessing nonpharmacological treatments ( NPTs ) . STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING The Delphi consensus method was used to select and reduce the number of items in the checklist . A total of 154 individuals were invited to participate : epidemiologists and statisticians involved in the field of methodology of RCTs ( n = 55 ) , members of the Cochrane Collaboration ( n = 41 ) , and clinicians involved in planning NPT clinical trials ( n = 58 ) . Participants ranked on a 10-point Likert scale whether an item should be included in the checklist . RESULTS Fifty-five experts ( 36 % ) participated in the survey . They were experienced in systematic review s ( 68 % were involved in the Cochrane Collaboration ) and in planning RCTs ( 76 % ) . Three rounds of the Delphi method were conducted to achieve consensus . The final checklist contains 10 items and 5 subitems , with items related to the st and ardization of the intervention , care provider influence , and additional measures to minimize the potential bias from lack of blinding of participants , care providers , and outcome assessors . CONCLUSIONS This tool can be used to critically appraise the medical literature , design NPT studies , and assess the quality of trial reports included in systematic review
A significant positive effect of the interventions on weight was reported by all study types .
The meta- analysis showed that lifestyle interventions achieved weight and waist circumference reductions after one year .
However , no clear effects on biochemical or clinical parameters were observed , possibly due to short follow-up periods or lack of power of the studies meta-analysed .
Changes in dietary parameters or physical activity were generally not reported .
Most studies assessing feasibility were supportive of implementation of lifestyle interventions in routine clinical care .
Conclusion Lifestyle interventions for patients at high risk of diabetes , delivered by a variety of healthcare providers in routine clinical setting s , are feasible but appear to be of limited clinical benefit one year after intervention .
Despite convincing evidence from structured intensive trials , this systematic review showed that translation into routine practice has less effect on diabetes risk reduction
Background The clinical effectiveness of intensive lifestyle interventions in preventing or delaying diabetes in people at high risk has been established from r and omised trials of structured , intensive interventions conducted in several countries over the past two decades .
The challenge is to translate them into routine clinical setting s. The objective of this review is to determine whether lifestyle interventions delivered to high-risk adult patients in routine clinical care setting s are feasible and effective in achieving reductions in risk factors for diabetes .