Disclaimer
This Guideline attempts to define principles of practice that should produce high-quality
patient care. It is applicable to specialists, primary care, and providers at all levels. This
Guideline should not be considered exclusive of other methods of care reasonably directed at
obtaining the same results. The ultimate judgment concerning the propriety of any course of
conduct must be made by the clinician after consideration of each individual patient situation.
Neither IGC, the medical associations, nor the authors endorse any product or service
associated with the distributor of this clinical reference tool.
Abbreviations
A1C, glycohemoglobin; BMI, body mass index; DKD, diabetic kidney disease; GFR,
glomerular filtration rate; MNT, medical nutrition therapy; MNTT, multiple daily
injections; RDN, registered dietitian nutritionist
Source
Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. Evidence Analysis Library Diabetes Types 1 and 2
(2015) Evidence-Based Nutrition Practice Guideline, Chicago, IL.
To view the entire Diabetes Type 1 and 2 2015 Guideline, including introduction, scope,
harms/benefits and supporting evidence, visit www.andeal.org/dm
106 Commerce Street, Suite 105
Lake Mary, FL 32746
TEL: 407.878.7606 • FAX: 407.878.7611
Order additional copies at GuidelineCentral.com
Copyright © 2017 All rights reserved
ANDDIA17122b
Criteria for Recommendation Ratings
Statement Definition
Strong
• Benefits clearly exceed the harms (or harms clearly exceed the
benefits for a negative recommendation)
• The quality of the supporting evidence is excellent/good
(grade I or II)
Fair
• Benefits exceed the harms (or harms clearly exceed the benefits
for a negative recommendation)
• Quality of evidence is not as strong (grade II or III)
Weak
• Quality of evidence that exists is suspect
• Or that well-done studies (grade I, II or III) show little clear
advantage to one approach versus another
Consensus
• Expert opinion (grade IV) supports the guideline
recommendation
Insufficient
Evidence
• Both a lack of pertinent evidence (grade V) and/or an unclear
balance between benefits and harms