Table 3 Effect of TRA on global CVD risk, single risk factors level, lifestyle, and other factors (secondary outcomes). [In case of meta-analysis (MA), the number of studies included and the results were presented; results of studies not included in the MA are shown below]

Brindle 2006 [16]

No difference: 1 study

Reduction: 1 study;

No difference: 2 studies

No difference: 1 study

–

–

–

–

–

–

Referral to dietician:

No difference: 1 study

Sheridan 2008 [17]

Reduction: 1 study

Reduction: 1 study;

No difference: 1 study

Reduction: 1 study

Reduction: 1 study

No difference: 1 study

No difference:

2 studies

Increase: 1 study

–

–

Referral to dietician:

No difference: 1 study

Sheridan 2010 [18]

Reduction: 4 studies;

No difference: 5 studies

Reduction: 5 studies;

No difference: 3 studies

Reduction: 3 studies;

Increase: 1 study

Reduction: 2 studies;

No difference: 1 study

–

Reduction: 1 studies;

No difference: 5 studies

Increase: 1 study;

Mixed: 4 studies

No difference: 3 studies

–

Waldron 2011 [35]

–

–

Reduction: 1 study

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

van Dieren 2012 [36]

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Willis 2012 [19]

Reduction: 1 study

Reduction: 1 study;

No difference: 4 studies

Reduction: 3 studies;

No difference: 2 studies

–

–

Reduction: 1 study

–

–

–

–

Usher-Smith 2015 [37]

Reduction: MA, 4 studies (−0,39 MD; 95% CI -0.71 to − 0.07; I² = 62,9%),

High CVD risk:

No difference: 1 study

SBP:

No difference: MA, 4 studies (− 0,82 mmHg; 95% CI -2.70 to 1.05; I² = 27,4%)

No difference: 1 study

SBP, high risk: Reduction: MA, 2 studies (−4,82 mmHg; 95% CI -9.38 to − 0.26)

DBP:

No difference: MA, 3 studies (− 0,48 mmHg, 95% CI -1.41 to 0.44, I² = 0%)

DBP, high risk: No difference: 1 study (−1,9 mmHg, NS)

No difference: 2 studies

No difference: 4 studies

No difference: 2 studies

No difference: 3 studies

No difference: 2 studies

HDL-C and TC to HDL-C ratio: No difference: 1 study

TG:

No difference: 1 study

Reach lipids targets:

Increase: 1 study

Glycaemia:

No difference: 1 study

Accurate risk perception: Increase: 3 studies;

No difference:

2 studies

Healthcare usage:

Mixed: 2 studies

Tomasik 2017 [38]

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Karmali 2017 [39]

Reduction: MA, 9 studies (slightly reduced SMD − 0,21; 95% CI -0.39 to − 0.02; I² = 94%);

No difference: 4 studies; Reduction: 1 study

SBP:

Reduction: MA, 16 studies (MD − 2,77 mmHg; 95% CI -4.16 to − 1.38; I² = 93%);

No difference: 2 studies

DBP:

Reduction: MA, 14 studies (MD − 1,12 mmHg; 95% CI -2.11 to − 0.13; I² = 94%);

No difference: 2 studies

Reduction: MA, 12 studies (MD −0,10 mmol/l; 95% CI -0.20 to 0.00; I² = 94%)

No diference: MA,10 studies (MD − 0,03 mmol/l; 95% CI -0.10 to 0.04; I² = 84%)

–

Reduction: MA,7 studies (RR 1,38; 95% CI 1.13 to 1.69; I² = 0%);

Reduction: 5 studies;

No difference: 4 studies

No difference: MA, 2 studies (RR 0,98; 95% CI 0.90 to 1.06; I² = 0%);

No difference: 3 studies; Increase: 3 studies

No difference: 4 studies;

Increase: 2 studies

–

Decisional conflict: Reduction

MA, 4 studies (SMD-0,29; 95% CI -0,57 to − 0,01; I² = 79%)

Costs: Reduction in cost of lipid-lowering medications prescribed to low-risk individuals: 1 study

Collins 2017 [40]

–

SBP:

Reduction: MA, 9 studies (MD − 2,22 mmHg; 95% CI -3.49 to − 0.95; I² = 66%); Reduction: 2 studies;

No difference: 1 study

Reduction (MA, 5 studies (MD − 0,11 mmol/l; 95% CI -0.20 to − 0.02; I² = 72%);

Reduction: 2 studies

Reduction (MA, 4 studies (MD − 0,15 mmol/l; 95% CI -0.26 to − 0.05; I² = 47%);

No difference: 1 study

–

Reduction: MA,7 studies (1,62 RR of quitting; 95% CI 1.08 to 2.43; I² = 17%); Reduction: 1 study;

No difference: 1 study

–

–

–

–