Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34191405›Full record

ArticleClinical obesity2021

Affordability and features of home scales for self-weighing.

Ji Seok Park, Carolyn Bramante, Rachit Vakil, Grace Lee, Kimberly Gudzune

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical obesity, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

5 authors.

Ji Seok ParkDigestive Disease and Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8713-8955
Carolyn BramanteDivision of General Internal Medicine, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5858-2080
Rachit VakilHeart and Vascular Institute, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Grace LeeDivision of General Internal Medicine, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Kimberly GudzuneJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7782-1769

Funding

University of Minnesota Clinical and Translational Science Institute (UMN CTSI)UL1TR002494 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI BLAZAR, BRUCE R, WEISDORF, DANIEL J · 2018 to 2022
$34.9M
Institutional Career Development CoreKL2TR002492 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI INGBAR, DAVID H · 2018 to 2022
$6.3M
Self-weighing for Weight Management in Adolescents with ObesityK23DK124654 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI BRAMANTE, CAROLYN T · 2021 to 2024
$801k
NCATS NIH HHS KL2 TR002492NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002494NIDDK NIH HHS K23 DK124654
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Self-weighing is an evidence-based weight management strategy, which requires patients to have a home scale. For clinicians to effectively counsel patients on self-weighing, they should be aware of the costs and features available in typical home scales. Our objective was to describe the cost and features of the top bathroom scales available online. We performed content analysis of top 100 scales listed on a popular online retailer. Two coders independently extracted price and scale features (i.e., digital connectivity, body mass index [BMI] calculation, maximum weight accommodated). We used t-tests and ANOVA, as appropriate, to examine the relationships between price and features. Among the 97 scales included, mean scale price was $28.99 (SD $21.06; range $7.20-$139.95). Of the advanced features, 20.6% of scales had digital connectivity and 28.9% calculated BMI. Scales with advanced features cost significantly more than scales without (digital connectivity: $49.18 vs. $23.74, P < 0.001; BMI calculation: $42.92 vs. $23.33, P < 0.001). Most scales (76.2%) had a maximum weight of 351-400 lbs, and only 17.5% could accommodate >400 lbs. Price was higher for scales with a higher maximum weight (P = 0.002). No scale with maximum weight > 500 lbs had advanced features. Scales that have digital connectivity for telemedicine or can accommodate higher weights are less commonly available online and their costs may be prohibitive for some patients who need these features. Future research might consider testing whether insurance coverage for scales improves scale access and patient weight management outcomes.

Indexed as

OverweightTelemedicineBody Mass IndexBody WeightCosts and Cost AnalysisHumansmedical equipmentobesityself-weighing

Identifiers

PMID34191405
PMCPMC8664126

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.