ArticleObesity (Silver Spring, Md.)2017
Commercial Programs' Online Weight-Loss Claims Compared to Results from Randomized Controlled Trials.
Article in Obesity (Silver Spring, Md.), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Digital Toolkit for Weight Loss Maintenance in European Adults (NoHoW): 2×2 Factorial Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Trial
- Evidence-Based Digital Tools for Weight Loss Maintenance: The NoHoW Project.Obesity facts · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo characterize weight-loss claims and disclaimers present on websites for commercial weight-loss programs and compare them with results from published randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
methodsA content analysis of all home pages and testimonials available on the websites of 24 randomly selected programs was performed. Two team members independently reviewed each page and abstracted information from text and images to capture relevant content, including demographics, weight loss, and disclaimers. A systematic review was performed to evaluate the efficacy of these programs by searching MEDLINE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the mean weight change from each RCT included was abstracted.
resultsOverall, the amount of weight loss portrayed in the testimonials was extreme across all programs examined (range median weight loss 10.7-49.5 kg). Only 10 out of the 24 programs had eligible RCTs. Median weight losses reported in testimonials exceeded that achieved by trial participants. Most programs with RCTs (78%) provided disclaimers stating that the testimonial's results were nontypical and/or gave a range of typical weight loss.
conclusionsWeight-loss claims within testimonials were higher than results from RCTs. Future studies should examine whether commercial programs' advertising practices influence patients' expectations or satisfaction with modest weight-loss results.
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.