Trial reportDiabetologia2026
Time-restricted eating versus dietetic guidance on glycaemic outcomes in adults at risk of type 2 diabetes: a non-inferiority randomised clinical trial.
Trial report in Diabetologia, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04762251 (What Or When to Eat to Reduce the Risk of Type 2 Diabetes), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
What Or When to Eat to Reduce the Risk of Type 2 Diabetes (WOW)
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Editorial: Exerscience: exploring physical activity's role in diabetes and its complications.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aims/hypothesisTime-restricted eating (TRE) consolidates daily energy intake to a consistent 6-10 h window. The aim was to assess whether TRE is non-inferior to individualised dietetic guidance (IDG) in changing HbA
methodsIn a two-arm, parallel-group, multi-centre randomised, non-inferiority clinical trial at two Australian clinical research institutes, adults at risk of type 2 diabetes (i.e. with overweight or obesity and a score of ≥15 on the Australian type 2 diabetes risk assessment tool) were recruited. Participants were randomly assigned using an electronic system (1:1) to TRE (9 h, self-selected eating window, last eating occasion by 19:00 hours) or IDG. Staff conducting assessments and analyses were blinded to allocation; participants and dietitians were unblinded. Both groups received five personalised telehealth consultations between 0 and 3 months (3 h total), specific to their allocated group. The primary outcome was the between-group difference for change in HbA
resultsOne hundred and twenty four participants were randomised to TRE and 123 to IDG (mean ± SD HbA CONCLUSIONS/
interpretationTRE may offer a pragmatic and practical short-term alternative when access to dietetic support is limited, or if the approach is preferred by an individual.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov; NCT04762251
fundingThis research was funded by the Australian Government Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF 1200555).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.