Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37468655›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2023

Validity of two weight prediction models for community-living patients participating in a weight loss program.

Robert Dent, Neil Harris, Carl van Walraven

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Obesity and its management in primary care setting.Journal of diabetes and its complications · 2025
    Review
  3. Article
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

3 authors.

Robert DentDepartment of Medicine, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Canada.
Neil HarrisWeight Management Clinic, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Canada.
Carl van WalravenOttawa Hospital Research Institute, Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, University of Ottawa, ASB1-003 1053, Carling Ave, Ottawa, ON, K1Y 4E9, Canada. carlv@ohri.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Models predicting individual body weights over time clarify patient expectations in weight loss programs. The accuracy of two commonly used weight prediction models in community living people is unclear. All eligible people entering a weight management program between 1992 and 2015 were included. Patients' diet was 1200 kcal/day for week 0 followed by 900 kcal/day for weeks 1-7 and were excluded from the analysis if they were nonadherent. We generated expected weights using the National Institutes of Health Body Weight Planner (NIH-BWP) and the Pennington Biomedical Research Center Weight Loss Predictor (PBRC-WLP). 3703 adherent people were included (mean age 46 years, 72.6% women, mean [SD] weight 262.3 pounds [54.2], mean [SD] BMI 42.4 [7.6]). Mean (SD) relative body weight differences (100*[observed-expected]/expected) for NIH-BWP and PBRC-WLP models was - 1.5% (3.8) and - 2.9% (3.2), respectively. At week 7, mean squared error with NIH-BWP (98.8, 83%CI 89.7-108.8) was significantly lower than that with PBRC-WLP (117.7, 83%CI 112.4-123.4). Notable variation in relative weight difference were seen (for NIH-BWP, 5th-95th percentile was - 6.2%, + 3.7%; Δ 9.9%). During the first 7 weeks of a weight loss program, both weight prediction models returned expected weights that were very close to observed values with the NIH-BWP being more accurate. However, notable variability between expected and observed weights in individual patients were seen. Clinicians can monitor patients in weight loss programs by comparing their progress with these data.

Indexed as

Weight Reduction ProgramsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedWeight Loss

Identifiers

PMID37468655
PMCPMC10356859

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.