ArticleClinical obesity2026
Do Obesity Classifications Create the Obesity Paradox? A Scoping Review of Obesity Definitions Applied in Sepsis Research.
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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Mitochondrial dysfunction in sepsis: nutritional strategies for restoring bioenergetic homeostasis.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Pooled it
- Do Obesity Classifications Create the Obesity Paradox? A Scoping Review of Obesity Definitions Applied in Sepsis Research.Clinical obesity · 2026Article
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
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
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.