Summary of findings for meta-analysis of low carbohydrate diets compared with balanced diets for overweight and obese adults: 3–6 months follow-up.

CI: Confidence interval ;aNote this is the univariate average change observed between follow-up and baseline in the control group.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 estimate.Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.1Downgraded by 1 for risk of bias: 8 of 14 studies did not report adequate sequence generation and 13 studies did not report adequate allocation concealment. 4 studies had high total attrition (>20%) and 2 other studies had differential attrition.2Not downgraded for inconsistency: no qualitative heterogeneity; some quantitative heterogeneity, to be expected.3Downgraded by 1 for risk of bias: 1 study did not report adequate sequence generation, none of the studies reported on allocation concealment and 1 study had high total attrition (>20%).4Downgraded by 1 for risk of bias: 5 of 8 studies did not report adequate sequence generation and 7 studies did not report adequate allocation concealment. 2 studies had high total attrition (>20%).5Downgraded by 1 for inconsistency: Mean differences were on opposite sides of the line of no difference (I2 51%).6Downgraded by 1 for risk of bias: 5 of 8 studies did not report adequate sequence generation and 7 studies did not report adequate allocation concealment. 2 studies had high total attrition (>20%).7Downgraded by 1 for risk of bias: 5 of 12 studies did not report adequate sequence generation and 11 studies did not report adequate allocation concealment. 3 studies had high total attrition (>20%) and 2 other studies had differential attrition.8Downgraded by 1 for risk of bias: 6 of 12 studies did not report adequate sequence generation and 11 studies did not report adequate allocation concealment. 3 studies had high total attrition (>20%) and 2 studies had differential attrition.9Downgraded by 1 for inconsistency: Mean differences were on opposite sides of the line of no difference (I2 63%).10Downgraded by 1 for risk of bias: 6 of 12 studies did not report adequate sequence generation and 11 studies did not report adequate allocation concealment. 3 studies had had total attrition (>20%) and 2 studies had differential attrition.11Downgraded by 1 for inconsistency: Mean differences were on opposite sides of the line of no difference (I2 72%).