PASSReviewer 1· 85% conf
Statistical methods are appropriate and well-described, with exact p-values for primary outcomes and effect sizes with confidence intervals.
Evidence
direct quote[Results, Primary outcomes]
“mean difference in changes between the groups was −0.13 mmol l −1 (log-transformed, 95% CI = −0.07 to −0.01, P = 0.016”direct quote[Results, Secondary outcomes]
“body weight: −2.46 kg (95% CI = −3.67 to −1.25)”direct quote[Methods, Statistical analysis]
“Analyses were carried out using v.4.0.2 of R and Python v.3.9.7.”PASSReviewer 2· 85% conf
Statistical analysis is generally rigorous: tests are named, effect sizes with CIs are reported, and software is identified. However, some p-values are reported as thresholds (e.g., P < 0.05) for secondary outcomes, which is imprecise but not a major flaw.
Evidence
direct quote[Results, Primary outcomes]
“P = 0.016 for the interaction between diet group, time-adjusted for age and sex”direct quote[Results, Primary outcomes]
“mean difference in changes between the groups was −0.13 mmol l −1 (log-transformed, 95% CI = −0.07 to −0.01, P = 0.016”direct quote[Results, Secondary outcomes]
“Reductions in body weight, waist circumference and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), and increases in diet quality (HEI score), were significantly greater after the PDP than with the control diet; differences between treatments were as follows: body weight: −2.46 kg (95% CI = −3.67 to −1.25); waist circumference: −2.35 cm (95% CI = −4.07 to −0.63); HbA1c: −0.05% (95% CI = −0.01 to −0.001); and diet quality (HEI score): 7.08 (95% CI = 5.02 to 9.15).”