Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28409089›Full record

ArticlePreventive medicine reports2017

Comparative effectiveness of guided weight loss and physical activity monitoring for weight loss and metabolic risks: A pilot study.

Karissa L Peyer, Laura D Ellingson, Kathryn Bus, Sarah A Walsh, Warren D Franke, Gregory J Welk

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Preventive medicine reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact, top 95% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Karissa L PeyerUniversity of Tennessee at Chattanooga, 105 Metropolitan Building, 518 Oak Street, Chattanooga, TN 37403, USA.
Laura D EllingsonIowa State University, Department of Kinesiology, USA.
Kathryn BusIowa State University, Department of Kinesiology, USA.
Sarah A WalshIowa State University, Department of Kinesiology, USA.
Warren D FrankeIowa State University, Department of Kinesiology, USA.
Gregory J WelkIowa State University, Department of Kinesiology, USA.
Iowa State University · USUniversity of Tennessee at Chattanooga · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many consumer-based physical activity monitors (PAMs) are available but it is not clear how to use them to most effectively promote weight loss. The purpose of this pilot study was to compare the effectiveness of a personal PAM, a guided weight loss program (GWL), and the combination of these approaches on weight loss and metabolic risk. Participants completed the study in two cohorts: Fall 2010 and Spring 2011. A sample of 72 obese individuals in the Ames, IA area were randomized to one of 3 conditions: 1) (GWL, N = 31), 2) PAM, N = 29, or 3) a combination group (PAM + GWL, N = 29). Weight and metabolic syndrome score (MetS), computed from waist circumference (WC), BMI, blood pressure (BP), and lipids were assessed at baseline and following an 8-week intervention. Weight was also assessed four months later. Two-way (Group × Time) ANOVAs examined intervention effects and maintenance. Effect sizes were used to compare magnitude of improvements among groups. During the intervention, all groups demonstrated significant improvements in weight and MetS (mean weight loss = 4.16 kg,

Indexed as

Activity monitorBehavioral interventionMetabolic syndromeObesity

Identifiers

PMID28409089
PMCPMC5385579
OpenAlexW2601797062

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.