Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30583725›Full record

SynthesisJournal of translational medicine2018

Intermittent versus continuous energy restriction on weight loss and cardiometabolic outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Iolanda Cioffi, Andrea Evangelista, Valentina Ponzo, Giovannino Ciccone, Laura Soldati, Lidia Santarpia, Franco Contaldo, Fabrizio Pasanisi, Ezio Ghigo, Simona Bo

Abstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of translational medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 103 papers, 25 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
103citing papers in PubMed, 25 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

103 citing papers in PubMed, 25 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

43 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

10 authors.

Iolanda CioffiInteruniversity Center for Obesity and Eating Disorders, Department of Medicine and Surgery, Federico II University Hospital, Pansini, 5, Naples, 80131, Italy.
Andrea EvangelistaUnit of Clinical Epidemiology, CPO, "Città della Salute e della Scienza" Hospital of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Valentina PonzoDepartment of Medical Sciences, University of Turin, c.so AM Dogliotti 14, 10126, Turin, Italy.
Giovannino CicconeUnit of Clinical Epidemiology, CPO, "Città della Salute e della Scienza" Hospital of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Laura SoldatiDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Lidia SantarpiaInteruniversity Center for Obesity and Eating Disorders, Department of Medicine and Surgery, Federico II University Hospital, Pansini, 5, Naples, 80131, Italy.
Franco ContaldoInteruniversity Center for Obesity and Eating Disorders, Department of Medicine and Surgery, Federico II University Hospital, Pansini, 5, Naples, 80131, Italy.
Fabrizio PasanisiInteruniversity Center for Obesity and Eating Disorders, Department of Medicine and Surgery, Federico II University Hospital, Pansini, 5, Naples, 80131, Italy.
Ezio GhigoDepartment of Medical Sciences, University of Turin, c.so AM Dogliotti 14, 10126, Turin, Italy.
Simona BoDepartment of Medical Sciences, University of Turin, c.so AM Dogliotti 14, 10126, Turin, Italy. simona.bo@unito.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6862-8628

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis systematic review and meta-analysis summarized the most recent evidence on the efficacy of intermittent energy restriction (IER) versus continuous energy restriction on weight-loss, body composition, blood pressure and other cardiometabolic risk factors.

methodsRandomized controlled trials were systematically searched from MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, TRIP databases, EMBASE and CINAHL until May 2018. Effect sizes were expressed as weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).

resultsEleven trials were included (duration range 8-24 weeks). All selected intermittent regimens provided ≤ 25% of daily energy needs on "fast" days but differed for type of regimen (5:2 or other regimens) and/or dietary instructions given on the "feed" days (ad libitum energy versus balanced energy consumption). The intermittent approach determined a comparable weight-loss (WMD: - 0.61 kg; 95% CI - 1.70 to 0.47; p = 0.87) or percent weight loss (WMD: - 0.38%, - 1.16 to 0.40; p = 0.34) when compared to the continuous approach. A slight reduction in fasting insulin concentrations was evident with IER regimens (WMD = - 0.89 µU/mL; - 1.56 to - 0.22; p = 0.009), but the clinical relevance of this result is uncertain. No between-arms differences in the other variables were found.

conclusionsBoth intermittent and continuous energy restriction achieved a comparable effect in promoting weight-loss and metabolic improvements. Long-term trials are needed to draw definitive conclusions.

Indexed as

Caloric RestrictionMetabolismRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicWeight LossAdultAgedBiomarkersFemaleHeartHumansMaleMiddle AgedPublication BiasBiomarkersContinuous energy restrictionFasting glucoseIntermittent energy restrictionTriglyceridesWeight loss

Identifiers

PMID30583725
PMCPMC6304782

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.