SynthesisJournal of prevention (2022)2024
Effectiveness of Different Online Intervention Modalities for Middle-Aged Adults with Overweight and Obesity: A 20-Year Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of prevention (2022), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Guideline-Based Digital Exercise Interventions for Reducing Body Weight and Fat and Promoting Physical Activity in Adults With Overweight and Obesity: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Interactive journal of medical research · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The main objectives of this systematic review and meta-analysis study include evaluating the methodological quality of existing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for weight loss and features of online intervention [OI]s in each trial, examining the associations between the methodological quality, intervention features and the effectiveness of OIs, and comparing the effectiveness of OIs and other intervention modalities through systematic review and meta-analysis. Systematic searches were conducted using PubMed, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and PsycINFO in the past two decades (2000 through 2019). Inclusion criteria includes Online intervention (intervention modality), middle-aged adults with overweight or obesity, at least six months or longer study period, an RCT, and 70% plus retention rate. Risk of Bias was assessed using Miller et al. in (Hester, Miller (eds) Handbook of alcoholism treatment approaches: Effective alternatives (3rd ed.). Allyn & Bacon, Boston, 2003)'s Methodological Quality Rating Scale (MQRS) and GRADE. MOOSE guidelines was referred for data synthesis. In total, 29 OIs were evaluated using 10 criteria for methodological quality and eight criteria for intervention features. Results revealed that the mean methodological quality score of the RCTs was 12.1 (out of 16), and the mean intervention features score was 6.6 (out of 8). RCTs with higher scores were more effective in weight loss than those with lower scores. Results of meta-regression showed that methodological quality was more important than intervention features to increase the effectiveness. Results of meta-analysis showed that OIs were significantly more effective than controls. Compared to OIs only, OIs with interactions with others and professionals were more effective. The study limitation includes assessing 'effectiveness' based on weight only due to lack of other indicators to compare between studies; some results are self-reported; and feedback from intervention participants were hard to review. Nevertheless, this study may contribute to improving the effectiveness of existing OIs for weight loss considering methodological quality and better intervention features.
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.