Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22053315›Full record

Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2011

Comparison of range of commercial or primary care led weight reduction programmes with minimal intervention control for weight loss in obesity: lighten Up randomised controlled trial.

Kate Jolly, Amanda Lewis, Jane Beach, John Denley, Peymane Adab, Jonathan J Deeks, Amanda Daley, Paul Aveyard

Registry-linked trialAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03157713 (Financial Incentive Strategies for Weight Loss in Obese Patients Living in Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Neighborhoods), which is not on this map. Cited by 163 papers, 23 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
163citing papers in PubMed, 23 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT03157713 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2017, after this paper: background citation

Financial Incentive Strategies for Weight Loss in Obese Patients Living in Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Neighborhoods

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of California, Los AngelesRan2017 to 2021Enrolled668ConditionsObeseArmsGoal-Directed Financial Incentives, Enhanced Usual Care, Outcome-based Financial Incentives
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

163 citing papers in PubMed, 23 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. A systematic review of inequalities in the uptake of, adherence to, and effectiveness of behavioral weight management interventions in adults.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. A systematic review of UK-based long-term nonsurgical interventions for people with severe obesity (BMI ≥35 kg mJournal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association · 2020
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Weight management programmes: Re-analysis of a systematic review to identify pathways to effectiveness.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2018
    Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Systematic review and meta-analysis of internet-delivered interventions providing personalized feedback for weight loss in overweight and obese adults.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2016
    Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Is self-weighing an effective tool for weight loss: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2015
    Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Behavioural weight management programmes for adults assessed by trials conducted in everyday contexts: systematic review and meta-analysis.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2014
    Pooled it

103 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Kate JollySchool of Health and Population Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK.
Amanda Lewis
Jane Beach
John Denley
Peymane Adab
Jonathan J Deeks
Amanda Daley
Paul Aveyard

Funding

Medical Research Council G0800808
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess the effectiveness of a range of weight management programmes in terms of weight loss.

designEight arm randomised controlled trial.

settingPrimary care trust in Birmingham, England.

participants740 obese or overweight men and women with a comorbid disorder identified from general practice records.

interventionsWeight loss programmes of 12 weeks' duration: Weight Watchers; Slimming World; Rosemary Conley; group based, dietetics led programme; general practice one to one counselling; pharmacy led one to one counselling; choice of any of the six programmes. The comparator group was provided with 12 vouchers enabling free entrance to a local leisure (fitness) centre.

main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was weight loss at programme end (12 weeks). Secondary outcomes were weight loss at one year, self reported physical activity, and percentage weight loss at programme end and one year.

resultsFollow-up data were available for 658 (88.9%) participants at programme end and 522 (70.5%) at one year. All programmes achieved significant weight loss from baseline to programme end (range 1.37 kg (general practice) to 4.43 kg (Weight Watchers)), and all except general practice and pharmacy provision resulted in significant weight loss at one year. At one year, only the Weight Watchers group had significantly greater weight loss than did the comparator group (2.5 (95% confidence interval 0.8 to 4.2) kg greater loss,). The commercial programmes achieved significantly greater weight loss than did the primary care programmes at programme end (mean difference 2.3 (1.3 to 3.4) kg). The primary care programmes were the most costly to provide. Participants allocated to the choice arm did not have better outcomes than those randomly allocated to a programme.

conclusionsCommercially provided weight management services are more effective and cheaper than primary care based services led by specially trained staff, which are ineffective. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN25072883.

Indexed as

CommerceGeneral PracticeWeight LossFemaleHumansMaleObesity

Identifiers

PMID22053315
PMCPMC3208022

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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 OpenQuestion graph.