Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30022056›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of obesity (2005)2018

How has big data contributed to obesity research? A review of the literature.

Kate A Timmins, Mark A Green, Duncan Radley, Michelle A Morris, Jamie Pearce

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of obesity (2005), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Health-Promoting Food Retail-Based Interventions.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Advancing precision public health for obesity in children.Reviews in endocrine & metabolic disorders · 2023
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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.

Kate A TimminsSchool of Sport and Exercise Science, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7643-7319
Mark A GreenSchool of Environmental Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. Mark.Green@liverpool.ac.uk.
Duncan RadleySchool of Sport, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK.
Michelle A MorrisLeeds Institute for Data Analytics, School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9325-619X
Jamie PearceCentre for Research on Environment, Society and Health, School of Geosciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There has been growing interest in the potential of 'big data' to enhance our understanding in medicine and public health. Although there is no agreed definition of big data, accepted critical components include greater volume, complexity, coverage and speed of availability. Much of these data are 'found' (as opposed to 'made'), in that they have been collected for non-research purposes, but could include valuable information for research. The aim of this paper is to review the contribution of 'found' data to obesity research to date, and describe the benefits and challenges encountered. A narrative review was conducted to identify and collate peer-reviewed research studies. Database searches conducted up to September 2017 found original studies using a variety of data types and sources. These included: retail sales, transport, geospatial, commercial weight management data, social media, and smartphones and wearable technologies. The narrative review highlights the variety of data uses in the literature: describing the built environment, exploring social networks, estimating nutrient purchases or assessing the impact of interventions. The examples demonstrate four significant ways in which 'found' data can complement conventional 'made' data: firstly, in moving beyond constraints in scope (coverage, size and temporality); secondly, in providing objective, quantitative measures; thirdly, in reaching hard-to-access population groups; and lastly in the potential for evaluating real-world interventions. Alongside these opportunities, 'found' data come with distinct challenges, such as: ethical and legal questions around access and ownership; commercial sensitivities; costs; lack of control over data acquisition; validity; representativeness; finding appropriate comparators; and complexities of data processing, management and linkage. Despite widespread recognition of the opportunities, the impact of 'found' data on academic obesity research has been limited. The merit of such data lies not in their novelty, but in the benefits they could add over and above, or in combination with, conventionally collected data.

Indexed as

Big DataBiomedical ResearchObesityDatabases, FactualHumans

Identifiers

PMID30022056
PMCPMC6291419

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.