ReviewClinical obesity2026
Beyond BMI: Practical Guide for Clinicians to Integrate the Lancet Commission's Obesity Framework and King's Obesity Staging System.
Review in Clinical obesity, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- "What Patients Want": a qualitative study of expectations and ideal clinical encounters in obesity consultations.International journal of obesity (2005) · 2026Article
- Beyond BMI: The Impact of the New Lancet Commission Diagnostic Criteria on Prevalence of Obesity in the United States.Obesity (Silver Spring, Md.) · 2026Article
- Prevalence and comorbidity burden of clinical obesity in US adults.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Beyond BMI: Practical Guide for Clinicians to Integrate the Lancet Commission's Obesity Framework and King's Obesity Staging System.Clinical obesity · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Body mass index (BMI) on its own is a poor diagnostic and staging tool for obesity because it does not measure health status. The newly published Lancet Clinical Obesity Criteria (LCOC) for defining clinical obesity distinguish preclinical and clinical obesity based on organ or tissue dysfunction. The King's Obesity Staging System (KOSS) goes further and incorporates biomedical, psychosocial, and economic factors while offering a practical, holistic, and health domain-specific assessment of obesity's impact. This paper compares and maps the LCOC against the KOSS to highlight their complementary aspects, strengths, and potential for integration. By combining the LCOC philosophical framework with the practical patient-centred approach of the KOSS, we propose a unified model that enhances diagnostic ability and allows the clinician to track the impact of any obesity treatment. This integrated framework advances obesity management, addressing both medical, functional, and broader psychosocial challenges.
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.