ArticleNutrition journal2023
Dietary intake during a pragmatic cluster-randomized weight loss trial in an underserved population in primary care.
Article in Nutrition journal, 2023. 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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCurrently there are limited data as to whether dietary intake can be improved during pragmatic weight loss interventions in primary care in underserved individuals.
methodsPatients with obesity were recruited into the PROPEL trial, which randomized 18 clinics to either an intensive lifestyle intervention (ILI) or usual care (UC). At baseline and months 6, 12, and 24, fruit and vegetable (F/V) intake and fat intake was determined. Outcomes were analyzed by repeated-measures linear mixed-effects multilevel models and regression models, which included random cluster (clinic) effects. Secondary analyses examined the effects of race, sex, age, and food security status.
resultsA total of 803 patients were recruited. 84.4% were female, 67.2% African American, 26.1% received Medicaid, and 65.5% made less than $40,000. No differences in F/V intake were seen between the ILI and UC groups at months 6, 12, or 24. The ILI group reduced percent fat at months 6, 12, and 24 compared to UC. Change in F/V intake was negatively correlated with weight change at month 6 whereas change in fat intake was positively associated with weight change at months 6, 12, and 24 for the ILI group.
conclusionsThe pragmatic weight loss intervention in primary care did not increase F/V intake but did reduce fat intake in an underserved population with obesity. F/V intake was negatively associated with weight loss at month 6 whereas percent fat was positively correlated with weight loss throughout the intervention. Future efforts better targeting both increasing F/V intake and reducing fat intake may promote greater weight loss in similar populations.
trial registrationNCT Registration: 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.