Summaries of outcome data in the 7 articles included in this study
| STUDY | OUTCOME | INTERVENTION GROUP | CONTROL GROUP | P VALUE | COMMENTS | EFFECT SIZE* |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baron et al,15 1990 | Mean TC (SE) men/women, mmol/L | 4.52 (0.08)/4.80 (0.11) | 4.50 (0.08)/4.84 (0.11) | NS | No significant effect for women or men. | None |
| Mean LDL levels (SE) men/ women, mmol/L | 2.36 (0.07)/2.71 (0.09) | 2.31 (0.08)/2.73 (0.10) | NS | Small sample size might account for this | None | |
| Mean HDL levels (SE) men/ women, mmol/L | 1.41 (0.03)/1.49 (0.03) | 1.48 (0.03)/1.53 (0.03) | NS | None | ||
| OXCHECK study group,16 1995 | Mean TC (SD) attenders/all, mmol/L | 5.93 (1.06)/5.99 (1.10) | 6.18 (1.17) | <.05 | A large sample size can show statistical significance even when the absolute difference is small | Small |
| Mean diastolic BP (SD) attenders/all, mm Hg | 126.8 (19.6)/126.5 (19.3) | 129.0 (20.4) | <.05 | Small | ||
| Mean systolic BP (SD) attenders/all, mm Hg | 75.7 (11.5)/75.7 (11.6) | 77.2 (11.7) | <.05 | Small | ||
| Mean BMI (SD) attenders/all, kg/m2 | 25.89 (4.14)/25.88 (4.21) | 26.26 (4.31) | <.05 | Small | ||
| Elley et al,17 2003 | Mean change (95% CI) in systolic BP, mm Hg | −2.58 (−4.02 to −1.13) | −1.21 (−2.57 to 0.15) | NS | No effect despite reasonable sample size and follow up by exercise specialists | None |
| Mean change (95% CI) in diastolic BP, mm Hg | −2.62 (−3.62 to −1.61) | −0.81 (−1.77 to 0.16) | NS | None | ||
| 4-y cardiovascular risk score (95% CI) | 0.42 (0.23 to 0.6) | 0.52 (0.32 to 0.72) | NS | None | ||
| Mean change (95% CI) in BMI, kg/m2 | −0.11 (−.25 to 0.02) | −0.05 (−0.18 to 0.07) | NS | None | ||
| Kastarinen et al,18 2002 | Mean change (95% CI) in systolic BP, mm Hg | −2.0 (−3.7 to −0.3) | −0.4 (−1.3 to 2.0) | <.05 | Small | |
| Mean change (95% CI) in diastolic BP, mm Hg | −2.4 (−3.4 to −1.4) | −0.4 (−1.4 to 0.8) | <.05 | Small | ||
| Roderick et al,19 1997 | Mean differences† (95% CI) in TC, mmol/L | −0.20 (−0.38 to −0.03) | <.05 | Use of practice nurses for dietary counseling to decrease cardiovascular risk scores was ineffective in a low-risk population | None | |
| Mean differences† (95% CI) in BMI, kg/m2 | −0.12 (−0.03 to 0.05) | NS | None | |||
| Mean differences† (95% CI) in systolic BP, mm Hg | −0.59 (−2.43 to 1.24) | NS | None | |||
| Mean differences (95% CI) in diastolic BP, mm Hg | 0.09 (−4.9 to 5.0) | NS | None | |||
| Salkeld et al,20 1997 | Mean change (95% CI) in diastolic BP‡ men/women, mm Hg | −4.0 (−6.02 to −1.97)/ −0.9 (−3.1 to 1.3) | −1.5 (−3.34 to 0.73)/ −4.0 (−6.37 to −1.7) | <.05/<.05 | Appears to be helpful only in improving diastolic BP in men | Moderate/ Negative |
| Mean change (95% CI) in TC‡ men/women, mmol/L | −0.46 (−0.75 to −0.13)/ −0.83 (−1.15 to −0.51) | −0.58 (−0.88 to −0.27)/ −0.58 (−0.81 to −0.35) | NS | None | ||
| Mean change (95% CI) in BMI‡ men/women, kg/m2 | 0.1 (−0.57 to 0.38)/ −0.03(−0.6 to 0.53) | −0.6 (−1.23 to −0.001)/ −0.3 (−0.48 to −0.15) | NS | None | ||
| Steptoe et al,21 1999 | Mean change (95% CI) in TC, mmol/L | −0.31 (−0.46 to −0.21) | −0.33 (−0.48 to −0.15) | NS | Appears to be helpful only in improving diastolic BP in men | None |
| Mean change (95% CI) in BMI, kg/m2 | 0.23 (−0.6 to 0.12) | −0.07 (−0.3 to 0.14) | NS | None | ||
| Mean change (95% CI) in systolic BP, mm Hg | −4.3 (−7.0 to −2.3) | −1.8 (−4.1 to 0.5) | NS | None | ||
| Mean change (95% CI) in diastolic BP, mm Hg | −0.7 (−0.31 to 1.6) | −1.0 (−2.0 to 0.01) | NS | None |