3 ms·
The headline is misleading. The result was from a getting support to make diet and lifestyle changes. That resulted in both losing weight and lowering risk of
by wins32767 6y ago
The headline is misleading. The result was from a getting support to make diet and lifestyle changes. That resulted in both losing weight and lowering risk of diabetes.
"Interventions A control arm receiving usual care (CON), a theory-based lifestyle intervention arm of 6 core and up to 15 maintenance sessions (INT), or the same intervention with support from diabetes prevention mentors, trained volunteers with type 2 diabetes (INT-DPM)."
- everythingswan 6y agoI want to know if I'm reading this wrong because our conclusions were different. It feels like they tested whether additional mentorship worked, it didn't, but their conclusion was that the "interventions" worked on both groups. From the "Findings" [1] >> In this randomized clinical trial of 1028 participants with high-risk intermediate glycemic categories, the intervention significantly reduced the 2-year risk of type 2 diabetes by 40% to 47%, although lay volunteer support did not reduce the risk further. For every 11 participants treated, 1 diabetes diagnosis was prevented. I took it to mean that the support added no additional benefit: both groups benefited from the treatment and the group treated with and volunteers did not outperform the control. [1] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2772239 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/articl...
- microtherion 6y agoYes. In fact, as far as I can tell, the abstract does not even mention weight loss as an outcome (though it seems to me that this kind of intervention might lead to it). I assume the submitter has read the full paper and can comment on it? Was the effect not significant, was it not preregistered, or was it not included in the abstract for some other reason?