Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22024104›Full record

Trial reportClinical trials (London, England)2011

Results of a feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT) for WATCH IT: a programme for obese children and adolescents.

Maria Bryant, Amanda Farrin, Deborah Christie, Susan A Jebb, Ashley R Cooper, Mary Rudolf

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical trials (London, England), 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Maria BryantClinical Trials Research Unit, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK. m.j.bryant@leeds.ac.uk
Amanda Farrin
Deborah Christie
Susan A Jebb
Ashley R Cooper
Mary Rudolf
University of Leeds · GBMedical Research Council · GBUniversity College London · GBUniversity of Bristol · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_U105960389Wellcome Trust 078174/Z05/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the evaluation of childhood obesity interventions, few researchers undertake a rigorous feasibility stage in which the design and procedures of the evaluation process are examined. Consequently, phase III studies often demonstrate methodological weaknesses. PURPOSE: Our aim was to conduct a feasibility trial of the evaluation of WATCH IT, a community obesity intervention for children and adolescents. We sought to determine an achievable recruitment rate; acceptability of randomisation, assessment procedures, and dropout rate; optimal outcome measures for the definitive trial; and a robust sample size calculation.

methodOur goal was to recruit 70 participants over 6 months, randomise them to intervention or control group, and retain participation for 12 months. Assessments were taken prior to randomisation and after 6 and 12 months. Procedures mirrored those intended for a full-scale trial, but multiple measures of similar outcomes were included as a means to determine those most appropriate for future research. Acceptability of the research and impact of the research on the programme were ascertained through interviewing participants and staff.

resultsWe recruited 70 participants and found that randomisation and data collection procedures were acceptable. Self-referral (via media promotion) was more effective than professional referral. Blinding of assessors was sustained to a reasonable degree, and optimal outcome measures for a full-scale trial were identified. Estimated sample size was significantly greater than sample sized reported in published trials. There was some negative impact on the existing programme as a result of the research, a lesson for designers of future trials. LIMITATIONS: We successfully recruited socially disadvantaged families, but the majority of families were of White British nationality. The composition of the participants was an added valuable lesson, suggesting that recruitment strategies to obtain a more heterogeneous ethnic sample warrant consideration in future research.

conclusionsThis study provided us with confidence that we can run a phase III multi-centre trial to test the effectiveness of WATCH IT. Importantly, it was invaluable in informing the design not only of that trial but also of future evaluations of childhood obesity treatment interventions.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultChildFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedObesityPatient SelectionResearch DesignSample SizeSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID22024104
PMCPMC3724279
OpenAlexW2152311823

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.