Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26727117›Full record

Trial reportObesity (Silver Spring, Md.)2015

A randomized trial testing the efficacy of a novel approach to weight loss among men with overweight and obesity.

Melissa M Crane, Lesley D Lutes, Dianne S Ward, J Michael Bowling, Deborah F Tate

Open access · bronzeAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Obesity (Silver Spring, Md.), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
7.2field-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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 61 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Systematic review of electronically delivered behavioral obesity prevention interventions targeting men.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2022
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. A systematic review examining socioeconomic factors in trials of interventions for men that report weight as an outcome.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2022
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Randomized trial comparing group size of periodic in-person sessions in a remotely delivered weight loss intervention.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2017
    Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Theoretical and Behavioral Mediators of a Weight Loss Intervention for Men.Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine · 2016
    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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Melissa M CraneDepartment of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Lesley D LutesDepartment of Psychology, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina, USA.
Dianne S WardDepartment of Nutrition, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
J Michael BowlingDepartment of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Deborah F TateDepartment of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · USEast Carolina University · US

Funding

Carolina Population CenterR24HD050924 · NICHD · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI MORGAN, SAMUEL PHILIP · 2005 to 2014
$10.0M
LINEBERGER CANCER CONTROL EDUCATION PROGRAMR25CA057726 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI EARP, JO ANNE L, RIBISL, KURT M. · 1992 to 2016
$8.0M
NCI NIH HHS 5R25-CA057726NCI NIH HHS R25 CA057726NICHD NIH HHS R24 HD050924
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo test the efficacy of a weight loss intervention designed to appeal to men.

methodsA randomized trial tested the efficacy of the Rethinking Eating and FITness (REFIT) weight loss program compared to a wait-list control. The 6-month intervention was delivered via two face-to-face sessions followed by Internet contacts. REFIT encouraged participants to create calorie deficits by making six 100-calorie changes to their eating daily while increasing physical activity, and the program encouraged customization through selection of specific diet strategies evaluated each week.

resultsParticipants (N = 107, 44.2 years, 31.4 kg/m(2) , 76.6% white) were randomized into the study, and 90.6% provided data at 6 months. REFIT participants lost -5.0 kg (95% CI: -6.1, -3.9) at 3 months, which was maintained through 6 months (-5.3 kg, 95% CI: -6.5, -4.2); this was greater than the control group (p < 0.001; 6 months: -0.6, 95% CI: -1.8, 0.5). More REFIT participants (49%) achieved a 5% weight loss than control participants (19%; OR 9.4; 95% CI: 3.2, 27.4). An average of 11.2 (±2.7) of 13 of the online intervention contacts were completed.

conclusionsThe novel REFIT intervention produced clinically significant weight losses. This approach holds promise as an alternative to traditional behavioral therapy for men.

Indexed as

Weight LossAdultBehavior TherapyCaloric RestrictionEatingEnergy IntakeFeeding BehaviorHumansInternetMaleMiddle AgedMotor ActivityObesityOverweightProgram EvaluationWeight Reduction Programsbehavioral therapymenweight loss

Identifiers

PMID26727117
PMCPMC4700541
OpenAlexW2180696310

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.