An observational study in Diabetes Mellitus, sponsored by University of California, Los Angeles. Completed at 1 site in United States. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 80 Years, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2017-07-21.
Sponsored by University of California, Los Angeles · Observational
Multiple NHANES surveys were combined and weighted to evaluate relationships between walnut consumption and type 2 diabetes mellitus using various independent measures of diabetes status and risk. After risks were ascertained, interactions with gender were analyzed.
Background. Dietary interventions and cohort studies of tree nuts lowering glucose levels for diabetes suggest a possible effect with walnuts. Objective. To examine the associations between walnut consumption and diabetes risk through data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). Methods. NHANES survey data for 1999 through 2014 was pooled for adults with 24 hour recall dietary data. Risk of diabetes was based on self-report, medication use, fasting plasma glucose levels, and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels. Individuals were characterized as reporting consumption of walnuts, mixed 'nuts', or no nuts.
10,923 studies on the registry are indexed under Diabetes Mellitus; 1,318 are open to participants now.
This study's enrollment of 34,121 is above the median of 233 across 2,218 observational studies indexed under Diabetes Mellitus.
Browse Diabetes Mellitus studies →University of California, Los Angeles is the lead sponsor of 1,142 studies on the registry; 192 are open to participants now.
Of its 91 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 66 (73%) have results posted.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) is a cross-sectional, probability survey administered to the US civilian population aged from 0 to 85 years. This study used continuous NHANES data collected from 1999 to 2014, covering eight cycles of data collection (N=82,091). Participants were excluded from analysis for being under 18 (N=34,735) and not having data on either day of the 24-hour food intake (N=6,533). In an attempt to have a control group free of nut consumers, individuals who consumed peanuts, but not other nuts on the day of recall, were excluded from the analysis (N=6,702). After exclusions, our analytic sample N was 34,121, representing a population size of approximately 176 million individuals.
Exclusion Criteria:
All other foods that did not include walnuts or other nuts were classified as "no nuts" (NN).
Diagnostic Test: Diabetes Outcome
Foods codes describing nuts that are not walnuts (i.e. cashew nuts, pistachios, etc.) or nut-containing foods that do not commonly contain walnuts (e.g. granola) were classified as "other nuts" (ON).
Diagnostic Test: Diabetes Outcome
food codes describing nut mixes and foods that commonly include walnuts were classified as "walnuts with other nuts" (WwON)
Diagnostic Test: Diabetes Outcome
Foods consisting entirely or mostly of walnuts were classified as "walnuts with high certainty" (WwHC)
Diagnostic Test: Diabetes Outcome
based on self report definition, fasting plasma glucose, and hemoglobin A1c
Diabetes Outcome- self report
Based on self-report as told by a doctor
Time frame: 1999-2014
Diabetes Outcome- Fasting Plasma Glucose
Based on FPG levels
Time frame: 1999-2014
Diabetes Outcome- Hemoglobin A1c
Based on HbA1c levels
Time frame: 1999-2014
Diabetes Outcome- Combined Definition
Based on both FPG and HbA1c levels
Time frame: 1999-2014
Sex Interaction
based on the previously stated definition outcomes
Time frame: 1999-2014
Plan to share: No
This study is completed, as verified in Jul 2017. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
University of California, Los Angeles