Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32457915›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in nutrition2020

Obesity or BMI Paradox? Beneath the Tip of the Iceberg.

Lorenzo Maria Donini, Alessandro Pinto, Anna Maria Giusti, Andrea Lenzi, Eleonora Poggiogalle

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in nutrition, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 152 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
152citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
13.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

152 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 257 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Risk factors associated with saphenous vein graft in-stent restenosis.General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2026
    Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

92 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Lorenzo Maria DoniniDepartment of Experimental Medicine, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy.
Alessandro PintoDepartment of Experimental Medicine, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy.
Anna Maria GiustiDepartment of Experimental Medicine, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy.
Andrea LenziDepartment of Experimental Medicine, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy.
Eleonora PoggiogalleDepartment of Experimental Medicine, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy.
Sapienza University of Rome · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The obesity paradox refers to extant evidence showing that obesity in older subjects or in patients with several chronic diseases may be protective and associated with decreased mortality. A number of mechanisms have been postulated to support the existence of obesity paradox; however, marked heterogeneity was found across studies and this has cast doubt on the actual presence of this phenomenon. The aim of the present narrative review is to summarize evidence underlying the concept of obesity paradox, focusing on limitations and bias related to this phenomenon, with emphasis on the use of body mass index (BMI). A major cause of the discrepancy between studies may be related to the use of BMI in the definition of obesity, that should consider, instead, excess body fat as the main characteristic of this disease and as the unique determinant of its complications. In addition, the adjustment for potential confounders (e.g., stage and grade of diseases, smoking habit, inability to capture the presence of signs of undernutrition in the normal-weight comparative group, consideration of body composition) may significantly scale down the protective role of obesity in terms of mortality. However, it is still necessary to acknowledge few biases (e.g., reverse causation, attrition bias, selection bias of healthy obese subjects or resilient survivors) that would still apply to obesity even when defined according with body composition. Further research should be prompted in order to promote correct phenotyping of patients in order to capture properly the trajectories of mortality in a number of diseases.

Indexed as

body compositionbody mass indexnutritional statusobesityobesity paradox

Identifiers

PMID32457915
PMCPMC7221058
OpenAlexW3021972501

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.