Appendix 2 Figure 1. Assessment of publication bias for studies reporting total cholesterol outcomes Figure 2. Assessment of publication bias for studies reporting LDL cholesterol outcomes Figure 3. Assessment of publication bias for studies reporting HDL cholesterol outcomes Appendix 3 Table 1. Summary of GRADE findings Trans fatty acids and change in total, LDL and HDL blood cholesterol Patient or population: Humans Settings: Randomised controlled trials Intervention: One per cent increase in TFA intake in exchange for cis-MUFA (expressed as a percentage of energy intake) Comparison: Control Outcomes Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) Relative effect No of Participants Quality of the Comments (95% CI) (studies) evidence Assumed risk Corresponding risk (GRADE) Plasma blood One per cent increase in lipids TFA intake as a percentage of energy intake Total cholesterol The mean cholesterol 411 ⊕⊕⊕⊝ Follow-up: 3-12 in the intervention groups (10 studies) moderate1,2 weeks was 0.02 higher (0.02 lower to 0.07 higher) LDL cholesterol The mean LDL cholesterol 2218 ⊕⊕⊕⊕ Follow-up: 3-32 in the intervention groups (9 studies and 1 high2,3 weeks was existing 0.04 higher (0.03 to 0.06 higher) HDL cholesterol The mean HDL cholesterol 2180 ⊕⊕⊕⊕ Follow-up: 3-32 in the intervention groups (8 studies and 1 high2,3 weeks was existing 0.01 lower (0.02 lower to 0 higher) *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval; GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the
Appendix 2 Figure 1. Assessment of publication bias for studies reporting total cholesterol outcomes Figure 2. Assessment of publication bias for studies reporting LDL cholesterol outcomes Figure 3. Assessment of publication bias for studies reporting HDL cholesterol outcomes Appendix 3 Table 1. Summary of GRADE findings Trans fatty acids and change in total, LDL and HDL blood cholesterol Patient or population: Humans Settings: Randomised controlled trials Intervention: One per cent increase in TFA intake in exchange for cis-MUFA (expressed as a percentage of energy intake) Comparison: Control Outcomes Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) Relative effect (95% CI) No of Participants (studies) Quality of the evidence (GRADE) Comments Assumed risk Corresponding risk Plasma blood lipids One per cent increase in TFA intake as a percentage of energy intake Total cholesterol Follow-up: 3-12 weeks The mean cholesterol in the intervention groups was 0.02 higher (0.02 lower to 0.07 higher) 411 (10 studies) ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate1,2 LDL cholesterol Follow-up: 3-32 weeks The mean LDL cholesterol in the intervention groups was 0.04 higher (0.03 to 0.06 higher) 2218 (9 studies and 1 existing ⊕⊕⊕⊕ high2,3 HDL cholesterol Follow-up: 3-32 weeks The mean HDL cholesterol in the intervention groups was 0.01 lower (0.02 lower to 0 higher) 2180 (8 studies and 1 existing ⊕⊕⊕⊕ high2,3 *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval; GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the
SD3%20%20Systematic%20Review.docx