Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25844369›Full record

ArticleCMAJ open

Strategies for weight maintenance in adult populations treated for overweight and obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Leslea Peirson, Donna Fitzpatrick-Lewis, Donna Ciliska, Muhammad Usman Ali, Parminder Raina, Diana Sherifali

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in CMAJ open. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. A Review onEndocrine, metabolic & immune disorders drug targets · 2025
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. 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.

Leslea PeirsonMcMaster Evidence Review and Synthesis Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. ; School of Nursing, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.
Donna Fitzpatrick-LewisMcMaster Evidence Review and Synthesis Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. ; School of Nursing, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.
Donna CiliskaMcMaster Evidence Review and Synthesis Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. ; School of Nursing, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.
Muhammad Usman AliMcMaster Evidence Review and Synthesis Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. ; Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.
Parminder RainaMcMaster Evidence Review and Synthesis Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. ; Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.
Diana SherifaliMcMaster Evidence Review and Synthesis Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. ; School of Nursing, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOnce weight loss is achieved, the challenge is to maintain this benefit. This review reports on the effectiveness of programs for weight-loss maintenance, as part of a larger review examining treatments for overweight and obese adults.

methodsWe updated the search of a 2011 review on screening and management of overweight and obese adults. Four databases were searched. For inclusion, participants had to have lost weight in treatment and then been randomly assigned to a weight-maintenance intervention or control conditions. Studies from the 2011 review that met the criteria were included. Data were extracted and pooled (where possible) for outcomes related to weight-loss maintenance.

resultsEight studies were included. Compared with control participants, intervention participants regained less weight (mean difference [MD] -1.44 kg, 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.42 to -0.47), regardless of whether the intervention was behavioural (MD-1.56 kg, 95% CI -3.10 to -0.02) or pharmacologic plus behavioural (MD -1.39 kg, 95% CI -2.86 to 0.08). Intervention participants also showed better weight maintenance than the control participants in terms of waist circumference (MD -2.30 cm, 95% CI -3.45 to -1.15) and body mass index (MD -0.95 kg/m(2), 95% CI -1.67 to -0.23). Participants undergoing pharmacologic plus behavioural interventions were more likely to maintain a loss of 5% or more of initial body weight than those in the control group (risk ratio [RR] 1.33, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.54); no difference was found for maintaining a weight loss of 10% or more (RR 1.76, 95% CI 0.75 to 4.12).

interpretationModerate quality evidence shows that overweight and obese adults can benefit from interventions for weight maintenance following weight loss. However, there is insufficient evidence on the long-term sustainability of these benefits. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO no. CRD42012002753.

Identifiers

PMID25844369
PMCPMC4382032

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.