Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32154788›Full record

SynthesisJMIR mHealth and uHealth2020

Long-Term Weight Management Using Wearable Technology in Overweight and Obese Adults: Systematic Review.

Emily Fawcett, Michelle Helena Van Velthoven, Edward Meinert

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. [Acceptance of Teledermatology: Results of a Survey of General Practitioners and Dermatologists in Saxony (Germany)].Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)) · 2023
    Article
  19. An Update on the Use of Wearable Devices in Men's Health.The world journal of men's health · 2023
    Review
  20. 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

3 authors.

Emily FawcettDepartment of Paediatrics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8587-8482
Michelle Helena Van VelthovenDepartment of Paediatrics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1245-8759
Edward MeinertDepartment of Paediatrics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2484-3347

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough there are many wearable devices available to help people lose weight and decrease the rising prevalence of obesity, the effectiveness of these devices in long-term weight management has not been established.

objectiveThis study aimed to systematically review the literature on using wearable technology for long-term weight loss in overweight and obese adults.

methodsWe searched the following databases: Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, EMBASE, Compendex, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Central, and Scopus. The inclusion criteria were studies that took measurements for a period of ≥1 year (long-term) and had adult participants with a BMI >24. A total of 2 reviewers screened titles and abstracts and assessed the selected full-text papers for eligibility. The risk of bias assessment was performed using the following tools appropriate for different study types: the Cochrane risk of bias tool, Risk Of Bias In Nonrandomized Studies-of Interventions, A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews, and 6 questions to trigger critical thinking. The results of the studies have been provided in a narrative summary.

resultsWe included five intervention studies: four randomized controlled trials and one nonrandomized study. In addition, we used insights from six systematic reviews, four commentary papers, and a dissertation. The interventions delivered by wearable devices did not show a benefit over comparator interventions, but overweight and obese participants still lost weight over time. The included intervention studies were likely to suffer from bias. Significant variances in objectives, methods, and results of included studies prevented meta-analysis.

conclusionsThis review showed some evidence that wearable devices can improve long-term physical activity and weight loss outcomes, but there was not enough evidence to show a benefit over the comparator methods. A major issue is the challenge of separating the effect of decreasing use of wearable devices over time from the effect of the wearable devices on the outcomes. Consistency in study methods is needed in future long-term studies on the use of wearable devices for weight loss.

trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42018096932; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=96932.

Indexed as

OverweightWearable Electronic DevicesAdultExerciseHumansObesityWeight Lossdigital technologyeHealthfitness trackersmHealthmobile healthobesityoverweighttelemedicinewearable devicewearable electronic deviceswearable technologyweight loss

Identifiers

PMID32154788
PMCPMC7093773

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.