Cochrane · systematic review · CD004192
Dietary interventions for multiple sclerosis‐related outcomes
Parks, NE, Jackson-Tarlton, CS, Vacchi, L, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2020 · Cochrane Library
Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the CNSAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
15
current version
GRADE rated
14
No studies
1
Included studies
NR
No studies 1 · 6.7%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 4 · 26.7%Low 8 · 53.3%Moderate 2 · 13.3%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) compared to monounsaturated fatty acid (MUFA) for multiple sclerosis (MS)
Population: adults with multiple sclerosis, defined by established criteria
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Relapse(assessed as number of participants experiencing relapse) Polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) vs monounsaturated fatty acid (MUFA) | RR 1.02 [0.88, 1.2] | 3 studies · 217 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Change in validated disability scale ( Polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) vs monounsaturated fatty acid (MUFA) | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 102 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Global impression of deterioration (investigator defined global impression of deterioration) Polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) vs monounsaturated fatty acid (MUFA) | RR 0.85 [0.71, 1.03] | 4 studies · 542 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
MRI activity ‐ not measured Polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) vs monounsaturated fatty acid (MUFA) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
SAEs (assessed as number of participants experiencing a SAE) Polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) vs monounsaturated fatty acid (MUFA) | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 40 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Omega‐3 compared to omega‐6 for multiple sclerosis (MS)
Population: adults with multiple sclerosis, defined by established criteria
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Relapse(assessed as number of participants experiencing relapse) Omega‐3 vs omega‐6 | RR 1.02 [0.62, 1.66] | 2 studies · 129 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Change in validated disability scale ( Omega‐3 vs omega‐6 | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 166 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Global impression of deterioration (investigator defined global impression of deterioration) Omega‐3 vs omega‐6 | RR 0.99 [0.51, 1.91] | 1 study · 86 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
MRI activity(assessed by new gadolinium‐enhancing lesions) Omega‐3 vs omega‐6 | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 86 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
SAEs (assessed as number of participants experiencing a SAE) Omega‐3 vs omega‐6 | RR 1.12 [0.38, 3.31] | 4 studies · 230 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Antioxidant compared to placebo for multiple sclerosis (MS)
Population: adults with multiple sclerosis, defined by established criteria
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Relapse(assessed as number of participants experiencing relapse) Antioxidant vs placebo | RR 0.98 [0.59, 1.64] | 4 studies · 345 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Change in validated disability scale ( Antioxidant vs placebo | no estimate extracted | 6 studies · 490 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Global impression of deterioration (investigator defined global impression of deterioration) Antioxidant vs placebo | RR 0.99 [0.5, 1.93] | 2 studies · 190 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
MRI activity(assessed as number of participants with gadolinium‐enhancing lesions) Antioxidant vs placebo | RR 0.67 [0.09, 4.88] | 2 studies · 131 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
SAEs (assessed as number of participants experiencing a SAE) Antioxidant vs placebo | RR 0.72 [0.17, 3.08] | 3 studies · 222 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |