Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26626760›Full record

ArticleCurrent obesity reports2014

Handheld Electronic Technology for Weight Loss in Overweight/Obese Adults.

Michelle C Carter, V J Burley, J E Cade

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Current obesity reports, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. 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.

Michelle C CarterNutritional Epidemiology Group, School of Food Science and Nutrition, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK. m.carter@leeds.ac.uk.
V J BurleyNutritional Epidemiology Group, School of Food Science and Nutrition, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK. v.j.burley@leeds.ac.uk.
J E CadeNutritional Epidemiology Group, School of Food Science and Nutrition, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK. j.e.cade@leeds.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Handheld electronic devices could offer a convenient and scalable platform with which to deliver a weight loss intervention. This paper aims to summarise the evidence provided by randomised trials of such interventions. There is heterogeneity among trials in terms of the components of the intervention package, the theoretical framework, the comparison groups and the duration of follow-up. While in the short term (<6 months) trials have shown some promising findings, two trials (one of a text message intervention and one of a PDA device for dietary self-monitoring) do not indicate clinically significant weight loss in the longer term (1-2 years). Topical issues are discussed including the importance of further research into dietary self-monitoring, the logistics of trialling smartphone applications and considerations of health literacy. There is currently no definitive randomised controlled trial of a smartphone app for weight loss in adults and further research into this approach is warranted.

Indexed as

Handheld technologyInformation communication technologyMobile phoneObesityOverweightPersonal digital assistantRandomised controlled trialsReviewSmartphoneText messageWeight loss

Identifiers

PMID26626760

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.