ArticleClinical nutrition (Edinburgh, Scotland)2025
Decoding unintentional weight loss: How the right questions make a difference.
Article in Clinical nutrition (Edinburgh, Scotland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsMalnutrition screening tools often include questions about unintentional weight loss (UWL). It is unclear whether individuals who intentionally desire to lose weight or perceive themselves as overweight interpret questions regarding UWL accurately. We assessed potential misclassification of UWL-related questions in these groups.
methodData from the Lifelines cohort was used (ñ125.000, age >18 years). Prevalence ratios (PRs) were calculated with a simple question regarding UWL as the dependent variable and the desire to lose weight and perception of one's body weight (too heavy vs. just right/too light) as separate independent variables. Associations were stratified by body mass index (BMI) group (normal weight vs. overweight/obesity) and adjusted for various comorbidities, demographics, and quality of life.
resultsOf participants with normal weight, 30.3 % desired to lose weight, 37.9 % perceived their body weight as too heavy and 5.1 % reported UWL; this was 80.1 %, 92.7 % and 2.7 % for those with overweight/obesity. In both BMI groups, the prevalence of UWL was ∼60 % lower in participants who desired to lose weight or perceived themselves as too heavy (prevalence ratios 0.40-0.43, p-value <0.05).
conclusionSince there is no logical basis for the desire to lose weight or one's perception of body weight to prevent UWL, lower reported prevalence rates on UWL-related questions are likely the result of misinterpretation. Malnutrition screening tools that include questions regarding UWL might underestimate the prevalence rates of malnutrition in higher BMIs, as individuals in these groups often aspire to lose weight or perceive themselves as too heavy.
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.