A high-fibre diet is associated with a lower risk for diseases. However, few adults meet the dietary fibre recommendation. Therefore, the effects and acceptance of an algorithm-generated personalised dietary advice (PDA) compared with general advice (GA) on fibre intake were investigated.

A 6-week, single-blind randomised controlled trial with a 3-month follow-up.

PDA was based on habitual intake and provided fibre-rich alternatives using a website; GA contained brochures. Dietary intake was assessed at baseline, week 1, week 6 and 3-month follow-up. Both groups evaluated their advice at week 6. All participants had access to PDA from week 7 until 3-month follow-up.

Two groups of healthy adults: PDA (n 34) and GA (n 47). For 3-month follow-up analysis, participants were re-divided into visitors (n 52) and non-visitors (n 26) of the PDA.

At week 6, energy intake remained stable in both groups, but fibre intake per 1000 kcal increased non-significantly in both groups (PDA = Δ0·5 ± 2·8; GA = Δ0·8 ± 3·1, P = 0·128). Importantly, a significantly higher percentage of PDA participants adhered to the recommendation compared with week 1 (PDA = 21 % increase; GA = 4 % increase, P ≤ 0·001). PDA participants evaluated the advice significantly better compared with GA participants. At 3-month follow-up, fibre intake increased compared with baseline (visitors = Δ2·2 ± 2·6, P < 0·001; non-visitors = Δ1·5 ± 1·9, P = 0·001), but was insignificantly different between groups. Visitors had a decrease and non-visitors had an increase in energy intake (visitors =Δ − 132 ± 525; non-visitors = Δ109 ± 507, P = 0·055).

The algorithm-generated PDA was well accepted and stimulated adherence to the recommendations more than GA, indicating to be a suitable and cost-efficient method for improving dietary fibre intake in healthy adults.

Single patient or ‘n-of-1’ trials are a pragmatic method to achieve optimal, evidence-based treatments for individual patients. Such trials could be particularly valuable in chronic, heterogeneous, difficult to treat illnesses such as schizophrenia.

To identify how often, and in what way, n-of-1 trials have been used in schizophrenia.

We performed a systematic search in the major electronic databases for studies adopting n-of-1 methodology in schizophrenia, published in English from the start of records until the end of January 2017.

We identified six studies meeting inclusion criteria. There was wide variability in study methodology and analysis. Each trial reported positive outcomes for their respective intervention, but all studies were at high risk of bias.

In conclusion, n-of-1 trials are currently underutilised in schizophrenia. Existing trials suggest the method is well tolerated and potentially effective in achieving optimal treatments for patients, but more standardised methods of design, execution and analysis are required in future trials.

S.M.L. has received grants and personal fees from Janssen, and personal fees from Otsuka and Sunovion, in the past 3 years, outside the submitted work.