ReviewCanadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique2020
Methodological approaches to the design and analysis of nonrandomized intervention studies for the prevention of child and adolescent obesity.
Review in Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating the contribution of a scaled up community-based overweight prevention programme in the Netherlands to children's health behaviours and BMIz.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2025Observational
- Evaluation of community-based health promotion interventions in children and adolescents in high-income countries: a scoping review on strategies and methods used.BMC public health · 2023Article
- Always better together: the Canadian Journal of Public Health and the Canadian Society for Epidemiology and Biostatistics.Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesInterventions for child obesity prevention are needed and it is unclear whether evidence from nonrandomized intervention studies is adequate. The objective of this research was to review the methods for the design, analysis and reporting of nonrandomized intervention studies for child obesity prevention and to assess potential for bias.
methodsWe conducted a review of nonrandomized intervention studies, including population health interventions, quasi-experimental studies and natural experiments, published from 2013 to 2017 that were identified in a recent systematic review. Data on study design, intervention and control groups, outcome measures, and statistical analyses, were extracted. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool.
resultsAll identified studies (n = 23) included a school or community-based intervention and had a concurrent control group. Participants were 3-18 years and sample sizes were 100 to > 1 million. Study designs were described inconsistently, and interventions ranged from 14 weeks to 5 years. Obesity was compared between control and intervention groups using logistic or linear regression, analysis of variance and mixed effects regression. Only 48% of studies accounted for clustering, and methods to control for confounding and repeated measures varied substantially. Overall risk of bias was moderate to serious for all studies.
conclusionThere are substantial opportunities to improve the methods for nonrandomized intervention studies and reduce bias. Future studies should use advanced statistical and causal epidemiology methods, including better control for confounding and clustering, to generate higher quality evidence and certainty regarding which obesity prevention interventions are effective.
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.