Evidence map›Paper›PMID 9604411›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners1998

GP documentation of obesity: what does it achieve?

P Little

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 1998. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Managing obesity in primary care: do our patients deserve better?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 1999
    Article
  5. Changing times for disinfection and sterilization procedures in general practice.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 1999
    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

1 author.

P LittleFaculty of Health Medicine and Biological Sciences, University of Southampton.

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundObesity is a major and increasing health problem in the United Kingdom, and, until recently, the government health promotion package for general practice reimbursed general practitioners for documenting obesity. Despite poor evidence for effectiveness of interventions in primary care, documentation of obesity could possibly improve patient awareness and knowledge, or provide public health information.

aimTo assess patient perception of obesity and its health risk, and the accuracy of estimating obesity using patient information.

methodSubjects were consecutive attenders to a general practitioner (GP) at a single urban practice in the South and West Region. Outcome measures were 'measured' body mass index (BMI) calculated from measured weight and height, 'estimated' BMI using patient information, and patient perception of obesity and the health risks of obesity.

resultsThere is good correlation between 'estimated' and 'measured' BMI (intraclass correlation 0.91). Estimated BMI is lower than measured BMI (mean 0.77 lower), and the difference increases with age and level of BMI: for BMIs of < 20, 20-24.99, 25-29.99, and > or = 30 the mean differences (estimated-measured) were -0.06, -0.46, -0.98 and -1.72 respectively. Estimated obesity (BMI > 30) is reasonably sensitive (70%), specific (99%), and predictive (93% positive predictive value) of measured obesity (kappa 0.78). All obese subjects are aware that they are overweight, and most of them (78%, 95% confidence interval 66-88%) are aware that their weight is a health risk.

conclusionObese patients attending GPs' surgeries are likely to know if they are overweight, or could easily estimate from their knowledge of height and weight that they were overweight with reasonable accuracy. Obese subjects also know that their weight carries health risks. Thus, measurement of obesity in the general population is not likely to improve risk assessment or patient knowledge significantly. Without evidence for effective intervention or improved decision-making in primary care, reimbursement guidelines linked to the documentation of obesity in the population are probably an inefficient use of resources.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAttitude to HealthBody Mass IndexFemaleHumansMaleMedical RecordsMiddle AgedObesityRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID9604411
PMCPMC1409915

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.