We therefore used a recently described method to identify specific intervention features likely to be associated successfully or unsuccessfully with the outcome of interest [31]. Interventions were analyzed based on their success in producing a significant change (p-value ≤ 0.05) in outcomes, in the hypothesized direction [31]. Outcome measures of interest were HbA1c levels, anthropometrics, physical activity, and diet outcomes. Studies that reported at least one of the four outcomes were included in the analysis. selleck These four outcomes were selected based on what most studies investigated, although instruments measuring these outcomes varied across studies. For instance, anthropometrics

consisted of various measures including body mass index, thigh skinfold, body weight, tricep skinfold, waist-to-hip ratio, total body fat, percent body fat, trunk fat, and fat-free mass. Diet was assessed with a desirable change in any of the following: total kilocalorie intake, dietary risk score, mean vegetable consumption, fruit consumption, consumption of five fruits and vegetables per day, fried food consumption, healthy

eating plan adherence, fat-related www.selleckchem.com/products/lee011.html dietary habits, dietary fat intake, dietary cholesterol intake, kilocalories from saturated fat, and percent kilocalories from fat. When a study used several instruments to measure an outcome (e.g., diet), at least 60% (an arbitrary cut-off) of the measures must have reported significant positive ADAMTS5 results

to be considered a success for that outcome. Only post-test outcome data were used for all analysis. A rate difference determines which intervention feature has a positive or negative association with an outcome [31]. A rate difference was estimated for each intervention feature identified in the review using the following steps. First, a success rate was calculated for both the intervention with and without the feature. The success rate for the intervention feature (SRWF) is the number of studies reporting on the intervention having the feature of interest associated with a positive participant outcome, divided by all the studies reporting on intervention with the feature regardless of outcome; the specific formula used was: number of studies with feature with positive outcome/all studies with feature. Second, a success rate without a feature (SRWoF) is the number of studies reporting on the intervention without the feature of interest with a positive participant outcome, divided by all the studies without the feature regardless of outcome; the formula was: number of studies without feature with positive outcome/all studies without the feature. Third, rate differences were calculated for each intervention feature, by subtracting the success rate with feature (SRWF) from the success rate without the feature (SRWoF).