Trial reportClinical obesity2025
Efficacy of providing energy expenditure information to guide weight loss interventions in people with obesity: A randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Clinical obesity, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy of providing energy expenditure information to guide weight loss interventions in people with obesity: A randomized controlled trial.Clinical obesity · 2025Trial
- Energy expenditure and dietary intake in research: A visualization analysis.Nutrition and health · 2026Review
- Time-Restricted Eating in Real-World Healthcare Settings: Utilisation and Short-Term Outcomes Evaluation.Nutrients · 2024Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Resting energy expenditure (REE) and metabolic fuel utilization (carbohydrate or fat) proxied by respiratory quotient (RQ) from indirect calorimetry enables more precise measurement of energy needs and fat oxidation capacity. The study compared the effectiveness of providing energy expenditure information during diet and exercise weight intervention versus standard of care (SOC) on weight loss outcomes. Fifty-two participants with obesity were recruited from a specialist weight loss service, randomized 1:1 to intervention (INT) or SOC only. Participants in INT received four-weekly dietetic counselling, using biofeedback from energy expenditure data to recommend caloric restriction and physical activity goals, in addition to SOC. The primary outcome was the mean difference in weight loss between both groups after 24 weeks. Secondary outcomes include participant acceptability and tolerability using indirect calorimetry. Participants in the INT group demonstrated additional weight loss (-2.3 kg [95% CI: -3.1, -1.5]; p <.001), reduced waist circumference (-3.9 cm [95% CI: -5.48, -2.26]; p <.001), and decreased body fat percentage (-1.5% [95% CI:-2.31, -0.72], p <.001), compared to SOC, after adjusting for baseline body mass index, age, and sex. Forty-two percent (10/24) of participants in INT group achieved the minimum clinically significant threshold of 5% weight loss from baseline, compared to 8% (2/26) in the SOC group (p = .007). Participant acceptability and tolerability of indirect calorimetry were high, with mean scores of 4.5 ± 0.6 and 4.2 ± 0.7 (5-point Likert scale). The study establishes the safety and practical integration of biofeedback using indirect calorimetry promoting improved self-regulation and enhancing weight loss.
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.