Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22929209›Full record

Trial reportInternational journal of obesity (2005)2013

A within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis of primary care referral to a commercial provider for weight loss treatment, relative to standard care--an international randomised controlled trial.

N R Fuller, S Colagiuri, D Schofield, A D Olson, R Shrestha, C Holzapfel, S B Wolfenstetter, R Holle, A L Ahern, H Hauner and 2 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in International journal of obesity (2005), 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
207.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 2,116 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Experiences of a commercial weight-loss programme after primary care referral: a qualitative study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2015
    Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

12 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

N R FullerThe Boden Institute of Obesity, Nutrition, Exercise & Eating Disorders, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
S Colagiuri
D Schofield
A D Olson
R Shrestha
C Holzapfel
S B Wolfenstetter
R Holle
A L Ahern
H Hauner
S A Jebb
I D Caterson
MRC Human Nutrition Research · GBUniversity of Sydney · AUHelmholtz Zentrum München · DENational Health and Medical Research Council · AUFresenius (Germany) · DETechnical University of Munich · DE

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_U105960389
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDue to the high prevalence of overweight and obesity there is a need to identify cost-effective approaches for weight loss in primary care and community settings.

objectiveWe evaluated the cost effectiveness of two weight loss programmes of 1-year duration, either standard care (SC) as defined by national guidelines, or a commercial provider (Weight Watchers) (CP).

designThis analysis was based on a randomised controlled trial of 772 adults (87% female; age 47.4±12.9 years; body mass index 31.4±2.6 kg m(-2)) recruited by health professionals in primary care in Australia, United Kingdom and Germany. Both a health sector and societal perspective were adopted to calculate the cost per kilogram of weight loss and the ICER, expressed as the cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY).

resultsThe cost per kilogram of weight loss was USD122, 90 and 180 for the CP in Australia, the United Kingdom and Germany, respectively. For SC the cost was USD138, 151 and 133, respectively. From a health-sector perspective, the ICER for the CP relative to SC was USD18 266, 12 100 and 40 933 for Australia, the United Kingdom and Germany, respectively. Corresponding societal ICER figures were USD31,663, 24,996 and 51,571.

conclusionThe CP was a cost-effective approach from a health funder and societal perspective. Despite participants in the CP group attending two to three times more meetings than the SC group, the CP was still cost effective even including these added patient travel costs. This study indicates that it is cost effective for general practitioners (GPs) to refer overweight and obese patients to a CP, which may be better value than expending public funds on GP visits to manage this problem.

Indexed as

Diet, ReducingWeight LossWeight Reduction ProgramsAdultAustraliaBody Mass IndexCost-Benefit AnalysisDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2FemaleGermanyHumansMaleMiddle AgedObesityPatient CompliancePatient Satisfaction

Identifiers

PMID22929209
PMCPMC3679478
OpenAlexW1987282451

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.