SynthesisObesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity2016
Methodological quality of behavioural weight loss studies: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity, 2016. 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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Getting the most out of intensive longitudinal data: a methodological review of workload-injury studies.BMJ open · 2018Pooled it
- Weight Loss Intervention Promoting an Adapted Mediterranean-Style Dietary Pattern: The DELISH Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2026Trial
- Does the incorporation of portion-control strategies in a behavioral program improve weight loss in a 1-year randomized controlled trial?International journal of obesity (2005) · 2017Trial
- Mobile health plus community health worker support for weight management among public housing residents (Path to Health): A randomized controlled trial protocol.Contemporary clinical trials · 2022Article
- Racial/ethnic representation in lifestyle weight loss intervention studies in the United States: A systematic review.Preventive medicine reports · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This systematic review assessed the methodological quality of behavioural weight loss intervention studies conducted among adults and associations between quality and statistically significant weight loss outcome, strength of intervention effectiveness and sample size. Searches for trials published between January, 2009 and December, 2014 were conducted using PUBMED, MEDLINE and PSYCINFO and identified ninety studies. Methodological quality indicators included study design, anthropometric measurement approach, sample size calculations, intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis, loss to follow-up rate, missing data strategy, sampling strategy, report of treatment receipt and report of intervention fidelity (mean = 6.3). Indicators most commonly utilized included randomized design (100%), objectively measured anthropometrics (96.7%), ITT analysis (86.7%) and reporting treatment adherence (76.7%). Most studies (62.2%) had a follow-up rate > 75% and reported a loss to follow-up analytic strategy or minimal missing data (69.9%). Describing intervention fidelity (34.4%) and sampling from a known population (41.1%) were least common. Methodological quality was not associated with reporting a statistically significant result, effect size or sample size. This review found the published literature of behavioural weight loss trials to be of high quality for specific indicators, including study design and measurement. Identified for improvement include utilization of more rigorous statistical approaches to loss to follow up and better fidelity reporting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.