Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30675990›Full record

SynthesisObesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity2019

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of meal replacements for weight loss.

Nerys M Astbury, Carmen Piernas, Jamie Hartmann-Boyce, Sophia Lapworth, Paul Aveyard, Susan A Jebb

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 85 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
85citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
31.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

85 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 182 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Impact of weight-loss interventions on psoriasis severity: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of meal replacements for weight loss.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2019
    Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

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

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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Nerys M AstburyNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9301-7458
Carmen PiernasNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7536-922X
Jamie Hartmann-BoyceNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9898-3049
Sophia LapworthNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Paul AveyardNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1802-4217
Susan A JebbNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9190-2920
National Institute for Health Research · GBUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Meal replacements (MR) are generally not recommended in clinical guidelines for the management of obesity. The aim of this review is to provide an up-to-date systematic evaluation of the effect of weight loss interventions incorporating MR compared with alternative interventions on weight change at 1 year in adults with overweight or obesity. Six electronic databases were searched from inception to the end of August 2018 for randomized controlled trials comparing the effect of MR with interventions that did not include MR on weight at 1 year. We excluded studies using diets providing <3347 kJ/(800 kcal)/day and those which used total diet replacement (TDR) from this review. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Twenty-three studies with 7884 adult participants were included. Six out of 23 studies were judged at low risk of bias across all domains, and 5/23 studies were judged at high risk of bias in at least one domain. Studies with similar intervention and comparators were grouped into five comparisons for analysis. Mean weight change at 1 year favoured the MR group relative to the control group in each comparison. In those comparisons where we conducted meta-analysis, in people assigned to a diet incorporating MR, mean difference was -1.44 kg (-2.48 to -0.39 kg; I

Indexed as

MealsWeight LossDiet, ReducingHumansWeight Reduction Programsdietmeal replacementobesityweight loss

Identifiers

PMID30675990
PMCPMC6849863
OpenAlexW2914335919

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.