Table 3 GRADE evidence profiles for the meta-analysis of the effects of vitamin C and vitamin D on blood pressure in patients with type 2 diabetes.

From: Effects of individual micronutrients on blood pressure in patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Vitamin C

Quality assessment

Summary of Findings

Participants (studies) Follow-up

Risk of bias

Inconsistency

Indirectness

Imprecision

Publication bias

Overall quality of evidence

Study event rates (%)

Relative effect (95% CI)

Anticipated absolute effects

Intervention

Control

Systolic Blood Pressure (IMPORTANT OUTCOME; Better indicated by lower values)

65 (2 studies) 3.5 weeks

Serious 1

Serious 2

not serious

Serious 3

undetected

VERY LOW due to risk of bias, inconsistency, imprecision

32

33

The mean systolic blood pressure in the intervention group was 3.93 lower (14.78 lower to 6.92 higher)

Diastolic Blood Pressure (IMPORTANT OUTCOME; Better indicated by lower values)

65 (2 studies) 6.35 weeks

serious 1

serious 2

no serious indirectness

no serious imprecision

undetected

LOW1 , 2 due to risk of bias, inconsistency

32

33

The mean diastolic blood pressure in the intervention group was 2.88 lower (2.88 to 0.46 lower)

Vitamin D

Systolic Blood Pressure (Better indicated by lower values)

542 (7 studies) 3–52 weeks

no serious risk of bias

Serious 2

no serious indirectness

no serious imprecision

undetected

MODERATE due to inconsistency

272

270

The mean systolic blood pressure in the intervention group was 4.558 lower (7.65 to 1.465 lower)

Diastolic Blood Pressure (IMPORTANT OUTCOME; Better indicated by lower values)

542 (7 studies) 3–52 weeks

no serious risk of bias

no serious inconsistency

no serious indirectness

no serious imprecision

undetected

HIGH

272

270

The mean diastolic blood pressure in the intervention group was 2.437 lower (3.487 to 1.387 lower)

  1. 1Most of the information concerning randomization and blinding was unclear in the analyses of the individual trials.
  2. 2High heterogeneity.
  3. 3Few patients analysed.