Trial reportInternational journal of obesity (2005)2025
Randomized non-inferiority trial comparing an asynchronous remotely-delivered versus clinic-delivered lifestyle intervention.
Trial report in International journal of obesity (2005), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02646618 (Get Social), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 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.
Get Social: Randomized Trial of a Social Network Delivered Lifestyle Intervention
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Telehealth Vs. Face-to-Face Treatment for Children and Adolescents With Obesity: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Pediatric obesity · 2026Trial
- Digital Health in Obesity Care: Current Evidence, Challenges, and Future Directions.Current obesity reports · 2026Review
- Article
- Formative Development and Acceptability of a Lifestyle Weight Management Intervention for Breast Cancer Survivors in Greece: The NutriLife Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Comparing Synchronous and Asynchronous Remotely Delivered Lifestyle Interventions: Protocol for a Randomized Noninferiority Trial.JMIR research protocols · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveLifestyle interventions are effective, but those delivered via in-person group meetings have poor scalability and reach. Research is needed to establish if remotely delivered lifestyle interventions are non-inferior to in-person delivered lifestyle interventions.
methodsWe conducted a randomized non-inferiority trial (N = 329) to compare a lifestyle intervention delivered remotely and asynchronously via an online social network (Get Social condition) to one delivered via in-person groups (Traditional condition). We hypothesized that the Get Social condition would result in a mean percent weight loss at 12 months that was not inferior to the Traditional condition. Additional outcomes included intervention delivery costs per pound lost and acceptability (e.g., convenience, support, modality preferences).
resultsAt 12 months, no significant difference in percent weight change was observed between the Get Social and Traditional conditions (2.7% vs. 3.7%, p = 0.17) however, criteria for non-inferiority were not met. The Get Social condition costs $21.45 per pound lost versus $26.24 for the Traditional condition. A greater percentage of Get Social condition participants rated participation as convenient (65% vs 44%; p = 0.001).
conclusionsResults revealed a remotely-delivered asynchronous lifestyle intervention resulted in slightly less weight loss than an in-person version but may be more economical and convenient.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02646618; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02646618 .
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.