Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26293233›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of obesity (2005)2015

Little appetite for obesity: meta-analysis of the effects of maternal obesogenic diets on offspring food intake and body mass in rodents.

M Lagisz, H Blair, P Kenyon, T Uller, D Raubenheimer, S Nakagawa

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of obesity (2005), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
7.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

M LagiszEvolution and Ecology Research Centre, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
H BlairInstitute of Veterinary, Animal and Biomedical Sciences, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand.
P KenyonInstitute of Veterinary, Animal and Biomedical Sciences, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand.
T UllerDepartment of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
D RaubenheimerCharles Perkins Centre, Faculty of Veterinary Sciences, and School of Biological Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
S NakagawaEvolution and Ecology Research Centre, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Massey University · NZUniversity of Otago · NZUniversity of Oxford · GBUNSW Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is increasing recognition that maternal effects contribute to variation in individual food intake and metabolism. For example, many experimental studies on model animals have reported the effect of a maternal obesogenic diet during pregnancy on the appetite of offspring. However, the consistency of effects and the causes of variation among studies remain poorly understood.

methodsAfter a systematic search for relevant publications, we selected 53 studies on rats and mice for a meta-analysis. We extracted and analysed data on the differences in food intake and body weight between offspring of dams fed obesogenic diets and dams fed standard diets during gestation. We used meta-regression to study predictors of the strength and direction of the effect sizes.

resultsWe found that experimental offspring tended to eat more than control offspring but this difference was small and not statistically significant (0.198, 95% highest posterior density (HPD)=-0.118-0.627). However, offspring from dams on obesogenic diets were significantly heavier than offspring of control dams (0.591, 95% HPD=0.052-1.056). Meta-regression analysis revealed no significant influences of tested predictor variables (for example, use of choice vs no-choice maternal diet, offspring sex) on differences in offspring appetite. Dietary manipulations that extended into lactation had the largest effect on body weight. Subgroup analysis revealed that high protein to non-protein ratio of the maternal diet may promote increased body weight in experimental offspring in comparison with control offspring; low protein content in the maternal chow can have opposite effect.

conclusionsExposure to maternal obesogenic diets in early life is not likely to result in a substantial change in offspring appetite. Nevertheless, we found an effect on offspring body weight, consistent with permanent alterations of offspring metabolism in response to maternal diet. Additionally, it appears that protein content of the obesogenic diet and timing of manipulation modulate the effects on offspring body weight in later life.

Indexed as

Body Mass IndexWeight GainAnimalsAnimals, NewbornAppetiteDietary FatsDisease Models, AnimalEatingFemaleLactationMaternal Nutritional Physiological PhenomenaMiceObesityPregnancyPrenatal Exposure Delayed EffectsDietary Fats

Identifiers

PMID26293233
OpenAlexW2287449494

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.