Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33339042›Full record

SynthesisAdvances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.)2021

Health Coaching Strategies for Weight Loss: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Sofia Mendes Sieczkowska, Alisson Padilha de Lima, Paul Alan Swinton, Eimear Dolan, Hamilton Roschel, Bruno Gualano

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.), 2021. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Reply to GA Sforzo.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Sofia Mendes SieczkowskaApplied Physiology & Nutrition Research Group; School of Physical Education and Sport; Laboratory of Assessment and Conditioning in Rheumatology; School of Medicine, FMUSP, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, SP, BR.
Alisson Padilha de LimaApplied Physiology & Nutrition Research Group; School of Physical Education and Sport; Laboratory of Assessment and Conditioning in Rheumatology; School of Medicine, FMUSP, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, SP, BR.
Paul Alan SwintonSchool of Health Sciences, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, United Kingdom.
Eimear DolanApplied Physiology & Nutrition Research Group; School of Physical Education and Sport; Laboratory of Assessment and Conditioning in Rheumatology; School of Medicine, FMUSP, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, SP, BR.
Hamilton RoschelApplied Physiology & Nutrition Research Group; School of Physical Education and Sport; Laboratory of Assessment and Conditioning in Rheumatology; School of Medicine, FMUSP, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, SP, BR.
Bruno GualanoApplied Physiology & Nutrition Research Group; School of Physical Education and Sport; Laboratory of Assessment and Conditioning in Rheumatology; School of Medicine, FMUSP, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, SP, BR.ORCID 0000-0001-7100-8681

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Health coaching has emerged as a potential supporting tool for health professionals to overcome behavioral barriers, but its efficacy in weight management remains unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesize and evaluate the quality of evidence supporting the use of self-reported health coaching for weight loss. Seven electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane, Psyinfo, Virtual Health Library, and Scielo) were independently searched from inception to May 2020. This review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation recommendations. Any study that investigated a self-reported health coaching intervention with the goal of inducing weight loss in individuals of any age, health, or training status was considered for inclusion. Quantitative data were analyzed using multilevel hierarchical metaregression models conducted within a Bayesian framework. A total of 653 studies were screened and 38 were selected for inclusion. The quality of evidence supporting outcomes based on the entire evidence base was very low and studies were deemed to have high risk of bias. Meta-analysis of controlled studies provided evidence of an effect favoring coaching compared with usual care but was trivial in magnitude [effect size (ES)0.5: -0.09; 95% credible interval (CrI): -0.17, -0.02]. The multilevel extension of Egger's regression-intercept test indicated the existence of publication bias, whereas a sensitivity analysis based only on those studies deemed to be of high quality provided no evidence of an effect of coaching on weight loss (ES0.5: -0.04; 95% CrI: -0.12, 0.09). Considered collectively, the results of this investigation indicate that the available evidence is not of sufficient quality to support the use of self-reported health coaching as a health care intervention for weight loss. This trial was registered at Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) as CRD42020159023.

Indexed as

MentoringWeight LossBayes TheoremHealth PersonnelHumansbehavior changeBMIhealth coachingwaist circumferenceweightweight loss

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.