Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25358395›Full record

SynthesisSystematic reviews2014

Impact of long-term lifestyle programmes on weight loss and cardiovascular risk factors in overweight/obese participants: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Lukas Schwingshackl, Sofia Dias, Georg Hoffmann

Abstract readComparative StudySystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing papers in PubMed, 10 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.

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

54 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Impact of different training modalities on anthropometric outcomes in patients with obesity: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2021
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. 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

3 authors.

Lukas SchwingshacklFaculty of Life Sciences, Department of Nutritional Sciences, University of Vienna, Althanstraße 14 UZA II, A-1090 Vienna, Austria. lukas.schwingshackl@univie.ac.at.
Sofia Dias
Georg Hoffmann

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/M005232/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the long-term efficacy of diet plus exercise (D+E) vs. diet (D), D+E vs. exercise (E) and D vs. E on anthropometric outcomes and cardiovascular risk factors in overweight and obese participants.

methodsElectronic searches were performed in MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of controlled trials. Inclusion criteria were as follows: body mass index≥25 kg/m2 and a minimum intervention period including follow-up of ≥12 months. Outcomes of interest were as follows: anthropometric parameters, blood lipids, blood pressure and cardiorespiratory fitness. Pooled effects were calculated using pairwise random effects and Bayesian random effects network meta-analysis. Results of the corresponding fixed effects models were compared in sensitivity analyses.

resultsOverall, 22 trials (24 reports) met the inclusion criteria and 21 (including 3,521 participants) of them were included in the quantitative analysis. As compared with D, D+E resulted in a significantly more pronounced reduction in body weight [mean differences (MD): -1.38 kg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.98 to -0.79], and fat mass (MD: -1.65 kg, 95% CI -2.81 to -0.49], respectively. When comparing D+E with E, MD in change of body weight (-4.13 kg, 95% CI -5.62 to -2.64), waist circumference (-3.00 cm, 95% CI -5.81 to -0.20), and fat mass (-3.60 kg, 95% CI -6.15 to -1.05) was in favour of combined diet and exercise, respectively. Comparing E vs. D, diet resulted in a significantly more pronounced decrease in body weight (MD: -2.93 kg, 95% CI -4.18 to -1.68), and fat mass (MD: -2.20 kg, 95% CI -3.75 to -0.66). D+E yielded also the greatest reductions with respect to blood lipids and blood pressure when compared to single applications of D and E, respectively. Results from the network meta-analyses confirmed these findings.

conclusionsModerate-quality evidence from the present network meta-analysis suggests that D+E can be highly recommended for long-term obesity management. Furthermore, the evidence suggests a moderate superiority of D over E with respect to anthropometric outcomes. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42013003906.

Indexed as

Life StyleCardiovascular DiseasesHumansObesityOverweightRisk FactorsWeight Loss

Identifiers

PMID25358395
PMCPMC4227972

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.