Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40781780›Full record

ArticleClinical obesity2026

Do Obesity Classifications Create the Obesity Paradox? A Scoping Review of Obesity Definitions Applied in Sepsis Research.

Efris Kartikasari, Brian Robinson, Caz Hales

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical obesity, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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

3 authors.

Efris KartikasariSchool of Nursing, Midwifery, and Health Practice, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7880-6878
Brian RobinsonSchool of Nursing, Midwifery, and Health Practice, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand.
Caz HalesSchool of Nursing, Midwifery, and Health Practice, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand.

Funding

Victoria University of Wellington
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Obesity appears to be associated with improved health outcomes in patients with sepsis, a phenomenon termed the obesity paradox. However, the potential influence of varying operational definitions of obesity on clinical outcomes within this paradox remains inadequately characterised. This scoping review aimed to identify, analyse, and synthesise the methodological approaches to obesity definition employed in sepsis research. A systematic literature search was conducted in August 2023 across MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and CENTRAL databases. This review included original articles, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses reporting on adult patients with both obesity and sepsis. After removing 60 duplicates, 430 citations were screened, and 68 met the inclusion criteria. Among studies on the obesity paradox, 90.5% supporting and 88.6% refuting it employed body mass index-based definitions, with approximately three-quarters using retrospective designs. Studies supporting the obesity paradox identified patients with obesity as younger, predominantly female, and with higher comorbidity rates. In contrast, studies refuting the paradox reported more diverse age and sex distributions, yet consistently noted elevated chronic disease prevalence in patients with obesity. Both groups found similar or higher illness severity scores among patients with obesity. The lack of methodological rigour in obesity definitions within clinical research may contribute to the obesity paradox. Future studies should critically evaluate measurement methods and definitional variability to clarify their impact on clinical outcomes.

Indexed as

ObesitySepsisAdultBody Mass IndexComorbidityFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedObesity Paradoxclinical outcomesobesityobesity definitionssepsis

Identifiers

PMID40781780
PMCPMC12705256

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.