SynthesisSystematic reviews2019
Health, not weight loss, focused programmes versus conventional weight loss programmes for cardiovascular risk factors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- "It Is a Vicious Circle": Experiences of People Living With Obesity and Chronic Pain: A Qualitative Evidence Synthesis (QES).Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2026Pooled it
- Medical Nutrition Therapy Interventions Provided by Dietitians for Adult Overweight and Obesity Management: An Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Evidence-Based Practice Guideline.Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics · 2023Guideline
- Weight-neutral interventions in young people with high body mass index: A systematic review.Nutrition & dietetics : the journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia · 2023Pooled it
- Feasibility and efficacy of a weight gain prevention intervention for breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a randomized controlled pilot study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2020Trial
- Weight-neutral interventions for people with obesity and the perspective of patients, carers and healthcare professionals: a mixed methods review.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Article
- Debating Weight Loss vs. Weight Neutral Strategies for Improvements of Health.Current obesity reports · 2024Review
- The experiences of people living with obesity and chronic pain: A Qualitative Evidence Synthesis (QES) protocol.PloS one · 2024Article
- Intuitive and mindful eating to improve physiological health parameters: a short narrative review of intervention studies.Journal of complementary & integrative medicine · 2023Review
- Article
- The importance of weight stabilization amongst those with overweight or obesity: Results from a large health care system.Preventive medicine reports · 2021Article
- Primary care providers' perspectives on initiating childhood obesity conversations: a qualitative study.Family practice · 2021Article
- Disordered Eating Behaviours and Eating Disorders in Women in Australia with and without Polycystic Ovary Syndrome: A Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2019Article
- Barriers and facilitators of intuitive eating in postmenopausal women: A qualitative study.Health psychology openArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundObesity is a cardiovascular disease risk factor. Conventional weight loss (CWL) programmes focus on weight loss, however 'health, not weight loss, focused' (HNWL) programmes concentrate on improved health and well-being, irrespective of weight loss. What are the differences in CVD risk outcomes between these programmes?
aimTo conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the effects of HNWL with CWL programmes on cardiovascular disease risk factors.
methodsWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ASSIA, clinical trial registers, commercial websites and reference lists for randomised controlled trials comparing the two programmes (initially searched up to August 2015 and searched updated to 5 April 2019). We used the Mantel-Haneszel fixed-effect model to pool results. Sub-group and sensitivity analyses that accounted for variations in length of follow-up, enhanced programmes and risk of bias dealt with heterogeneity.
resultsEight randomised controlled trials of 20,242 potential studies were included. Improvements in total cholesterol-HDL ratio (mean difference - 0.21 mmol/L, 95% confidence interval [- 3.91, 3.50]) and weight loss (- 0.28 kg [- 2.00, 1.44]) favoured HNWL compared to CWL programmes in the long term (53-104 week follow-up), whereas improvements in systolic (- 1.14 mmHg, [- 5.84, 3.56]) and diastolic (- 0.15 mmHg, [- 3.64, 3.34]) blood pressure favoured CWL programmes. These differences did not reach statistical significance. Statistically significant improvements in body satisfaction (- 4.30 [- 8.32, - 0.28]) and restrained eating behaviour (- 4.30 [- 6.77, - 1.83]) favoured HNWL over CWL programmes.
conclusionsWe found no long-term significant differences in improved CVD risk factors; however, body satisfaction and restrained eating behaviour improved more with HNWL compared to CWL programmes. Yet firm conclusions cannot be drawn from small studies with high losses to follow-up and data sometimes arising from a single small study. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42015019505.
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.