SynthesisObesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity2022
Impact of risk of generalizability biases in adult obesity interventions: A meta-epidemiological review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of risk of generalizability biases in adult obesity interventions: A meta-epidemiological review and meta-analysis.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2022Pooled it
- Examining predictors of scale-up penalty in preliminary studies of health behavior interventions and subsequent larger trials: a meta-epidemiological review of diverse fields.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2026Review
- Bridging the gap in obesity research: A consensus statement from the European Society for Clinical Investigation.European journal of clinical investigation · 2025Review
- CONSORT 2025 explanation and elaboration: updated guideline for reporting randomised trials.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Article
- Balancing best practice and reality in behavioral intervention development: A survey of principal investigators funded by the National Institutes of Health.Translational behavioral medicine · 2024Article
- Are the Risk of Generalizability Biases Generalizable? A Meta-Epidemiological Study.Research square · 2024Article
- Pilot Trial Characteristics, Postpilot Design Modifications, and Feasibility of Full-Scale Trials.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- The mysterious case of the disappearing pilot study: a review of publication bias in preliminary behavioral interventions presented at health behavior conferences.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2023Review
- Scientists' perception of pilot study quality was influenced by statistical significance and study design.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2023Article
- Fund behavioral science like the frameworks we endorse: the case for increased funding of preliminary studies by the National Institutes of Health.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2022Article
- Effects of female obesity on conception, pregnancy and the health of offspring.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Biases introduced in early-stage studies can lead to inflated early discoveries. The risk of generalizability biases (RGBs) identifies key features of feasibility studies that, when present, lead to reduced impact in a larger trial. This meta-study examined the influence of RGBs in adult obesity interventions. Behavioral interventions with a published feasibility study and a larger scale trial of the same intervention (e.g., pairs) were identified. Each pair was coded for the presence of RGBs. Quantitative outcomes were extracted. Multilevel meta-regression models were used to examine the impact of RGBs on the difference in the effect size (ES, standardized mean difference) from pilot to larger scale trial. A total of 114 pairs, representing 230 studies, were identified. Overall, 75% of the pairs had at least one RGB present. The four most prevalent RGBs were duration (33%), delivery agent (30%), implementation support (23%), and target audience (22%) bias. The largest reductions in the ES were observed in pairs where an RGB was present in the pilot and removed in the larger scale trial (average reduction ES -0.41, range -1.06 to 0.01), compared with pairs without an RGB (average reduction ES -0.15, range -0.18 to -0.14). Eliminating RGBs during early-stage testing may result in improved evidence.
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.