Evidence mapPaperPMID 25134692Full record

SynthesisJournal of general internal medicine2015

Technology-assisted weight loss interventions in primary care: a systematic review.

David M Levine, Stella Savarimuthu, Allison Squires, Joseph Nicholson, Melanie Jay

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of general internal medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 68 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
68citing papers in PubMed, 6 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.

NCT02626819 nacompletednot on this map

Improving Weight Management at VA: Enhancing the MOVE!23 for Primary Care (CDA 10-206)

TypeinterventionalSponsorVA Office of Research and DevelopmentRan2015 to 2018Enrolled45ConditionsObesityArmsMOVE! Toward Your Goals, Enhanced Usual Care
NCT02694614 nacompletednot on this map

Weight-loss Treatment of Overweight / Obesity Patients Through Smartphone-assisted Dietary Coaching: A Pre-post Pilot Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorOviva AGRan2015 to 2018Enrolled45ConditionsOverweight, ObesityArmssmartphone-assisted dietary coaching
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

68 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

8 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

David M LevineDepartment of Medicine, New York University School of Medicine, 423 E 23rd St Rm 15161, New York, NY, 10010, USA, David.levine2@med.nyu.edu.
Stella Savarimuthu
Allison Squires
Joseph Nicholson
Melanie Jay

Funding

HSRD VA IK2 HX000762
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe US Preventive Services Task Force recommends screening for and treating obesity. However, there are many barriers to successfully treating obesity in primary care (PC). Technology-assisted weight loss interventions offer novel ways of improving treatment, but trials are overwhelmingly conducted outside of PC and may not translate well into this setting. We conducted a systematic review of technology-assisted weight loss interventions specifically tested in PC settings.

methodsWe searched the literature from January 2000 to March 2014. INCLUSION CRITERIA: (1) Randomized controlled trial; (2) trials that utilized the Internet, personal computer, and/or mobile device; and (3) occurred in an ambulatory PC setting. We applied the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) and Delphi criteria to assess bias and the Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS) criteria to assess pragmatism (whether trials occurred in the real world versus under ideal circumstances). Given heterogeneity, results were not pooled quantitatively.

resultsSixteen trials met inclusion criteria. Twelve (75 %) interventions achieved weight loss (range: 0.08 kg - 5.4 kg) compared to controls, while 5-45 % of patients lost at least 5 % of baseline weight. Trial duration and attrition ranged from 3-36 months and 6-80 %, respectively. Ten (63 %) studies reported results after at least 1 year of follow-up. Interventions used various forms of personnel, technology modalities, and behavior change elements; trials most frequently utilized medical doctors (MDs) (44 %), web-based applications (63 %), and self-monitoring (81 %), respectively. Interventions that included clinician-guiding software or feedback from personnel appeared to promote more weight loss than fully automated interventions. Only two (13 %) studies used publically available technologies. Many studies had fair pragmatism scores (mean: 2.8/4), despite occurring in primary care. DISCUSSION: Compared to usual care, technology-assisted interventions in the PC setting help patients achieve weight loss, offering evidence-based options to PC providers. However, best practices remain undetermined. Despite occurring in PC, studies often fall short in utilizing pragmatic methodology and rarely provide publically available technology. Longitudinal, pragmatic, interdisciplinary, and open-source interventions are needed.

Indexed as

Weight LossBiomedical TechnologyDelivery of Health CareHumansInternetMobile ApplicationsObesityPrimary Health Care

Identifiers

PMID25134692
PMCPMC4284284

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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 Socratic graph.