Trial reportInternational journal of obesity (2005)2022
Comparison of weight loss data collected by research technicians versus electronic medical records: the PROPEL trial.
Trial report in International journal of obesity (2005), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02561221 (Promoting Successful Weight Loss in Primary Care in Louisiana), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 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.
Promoting Successful Weight Loss in Primary Care in Louisiana
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Weight Gain Prevention Outcomes From a Pragmatic Digital Health Intervention With Community Health Center Patients: Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Trial
- Assessing Electronic Health Record-Derived Outcomes in a Pragmatic Weight Gain Prevention Trial: Effects, Variability, and Implications for Future Trials.The Journal of cardiovascular nursingTrial
- Improving weight loss and cardiometabolic risk in black patients with diabetes or pre-diabetes: Rationale and protocol for a digital medicine hybrid type 1 implementation trial.Contemporary clinical trials · 2025Article
- Four-year follow-up of weight loss maintenance using electronic medical record data: The PROPEL trial.Obesity science & practice · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesPragmatic trials are increasingly used to study the implementation of weight loss interventions in real-world settings. This study compared researcher-measured body weights versus electronic medical record (EMR)-derived body weights from a pragmatic trial conducted in an underserved patient population. SUBJECTS/
methodsThe PROPEL trial randomly allocated 18 clinics to usual care (UC) or to an intensive lifestyle intervention (ILI) designed to promote weight loss. Weight was measured by trained technicians at baseline and at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. A total of 11 clinics (6 UC/5 ILI) with 577 enrolled patients also provided EMR data (n = 561), which included available body weights over the period of the trial.
resultsThe total number of assessments were 2638 and 2048 for the researcher-measured and EMR-derived body weight values, respectively. The correlation between researcher-measured and EMR-derived body weights was 0.988 (n = 1 939; p < 0.0001). The mean difference between the EMR and researcher weights (EMR-researcher) was 0.63 (2.65 SD) kg, and a Bland-Altman graph showed good agreement between the two data collection methods; the upper and lower boundaries of the 95% limits of agreement are -4.65 kg and +5.91 kg, and 71 (3.7%) of the values were outside the limits of agreement. However, at 6 months, percent weight loss in the ILI compared to the UC group was 7.3% using researcher-measured data versus 5.5% using EMR-derived data. At 24 months, the weight loss maintenance was 4.6% using the technician-measured data versus 3.5% using EMR-derived data.
conclusionAt the group level, body weight data derived from researcher assessments and an EMR showed good agreement; however, the weight loss difference between ILI and UC was blunted when using EMR data. This suggests that weight loss studies that rely on EMR data may require larger sample sizes to detect significant effects. CLINICAL
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov number NCT02561221.
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.