Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38246879›Full record

SynthesisObesity (Silver Spring, Md.)2024

Effect of planned pauses versus continuous energy restriction on weight loss and attrition: a systematic review.

Gina M Wren, Dimitrios A Koutoukidis, Jadine Scragg, Elena Tsompanaki, Alice Hobson, Susan A Jebb

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Obesity (Silver Spring, Md.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Impact of weight-loss interventions on psoriasis severity: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. 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

6 authors.

Gina M WrenNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9262-7043
Dimitrios A KoutoukidisNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1955-7234
Jadine ScraggNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1424-712X
Elena TsompanakiNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3530-2431
Alice HobsonNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7030-1106
Susan A JebbNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9190-2920

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/R015708/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe objective of this study was to investigate whether pausing a weight loss program for a defined period of time could enhance weight loss and reduce attrition.

methodsFive databases and two trial registries were searched from inception to July 2023. Randomized-controlled trials of adults with overweight and/or obesity were included if they compared planned-pause interventions with continuous energy restriction (CER), usual care, or a minimal intervention. To be included, the weight loss intervention must have incorporated a pause of at least 1 week. Pooled mean differences for weight change and risk ratios for attrition were calculated using random-effects meta-analyses.

resultsNine intervention arms (N = 796 participants, 77% female) were included. Pooled results did not detect a significant difference in weight change between planned pauses and CER interventions at the end of the active intervention at a median 26 weeks (planned pauses vs. CER mean: -7.09 vs. -7.0 kg; mean difference: -0.09 kg; 95% CI: -1.10 to 0.93) or at final follow-up at a median 52 weeks (planned pauses vs. CER mean: -6.91 vs. -6.19 kg; mean difference: -0.72 kg; 95% CI: -2.92 to 1.48). There was no difference in attrition between planned pauses and CER interventions at the end of the active intervention (risk ratio: 1.20, 95% CI: 0.82 to 1.75) or at final follow-up (risk ratio: 1.04, 95% CI: 0.89 to 1.22).

conclusionsPlanned pauses were consistently found to be no more or less effective than CER for weight loss or attrition.

Indexed as

Caloric RestrictionObesityWeight LossWeight Reduction ProgramsAdultExerciseFemaleHumansMaleOverweightPatient DropoutsRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID38246879
PMCPMC11423418

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.