Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26293454›Full record

SynthesisThe international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity2015

Is self-weighing an effective tool for weight loss: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

Claire D Madigan, Amanda J Daley, Amanda L Lewis, Paul Aveyard, Kate Jolly

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 50 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed
14.0field-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

50 citing papers in PubMed, 91 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Acceptability of a very-low-energy diet in Type 2 diabetes: patient experiences and behaviour regulation.Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association · 2017
    Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Making household food waste reduction easier.Nature human behaviour · 2025
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Claire D MadiganSchool of Health and Population Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK. claire.madigan@sydney.edu.au.
Amanda J DaleySchool of Health and Population Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK. a.daley@bham.ac.uk.
Amanda L LewisSchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK. amanda.lewis@bristol.ac.uk.
Paul AveyardNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Woodstock Road, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK. paul.aveyard@phc.ox.ac.uk.
Kate JollySchool of Health and Population Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK. c.b.jolly@bham.ac.uk.
University of Birmingham · GBUniversity of Bristol · GBUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

Department of Health WMCLAHRC-2014-1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is a need to identify effective behavioural strategies for weight loss. Self-weighing may be one such strategy. PURPOSE: To examine the effectiveness of self-weighing for weight loss.

methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials that included self-weighing as an isolated intervention or as a component within an intervention. We used sub groups to analyse differences in frequency of weighing instruction (daily and weekly) and also whether including accountability affected weight loss.

resultsOnly one study examined self-weighing as a single strategy and there was no evidence it was effective (-0.5 kg 95 % CI -1.3 to 0.3). Four trials added self-weighing/self-regulation techniques to multi-component programmes and resulted in a significant difference of -1.7 kg (95 % CI -2.6 to -0.8). Fifteen trials comparing multi-component interventions including self-weighing compared with no intervention or minimal control resulted in a significant mean difference of -3.4 kg (95 % CI -4.2 to -2.6). There was no significant difference in the interventions with weekly or daily weighing. In trials which included accountability there was significantly greater weight loss (p = 0.03).

conclusionsThere is a lack of evidence of whether advising self-weighing without other intervention components is effective. Adding self-weighing to a behavioural weight loss programme may improve weight loss. Behavioural weight loss programmes that include self-weighing are more effective than minimal interventions. Accountability may improve the effectiveness of interventions that include self-weighing.

Indexed as

Body Weights and MeasuresWeight LossHumansObesitySelf CareWeight Reduction Programs

Identifiers

PMID26293454
PMCPMC4546162
OpenAlexW1942150882

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.