ArticlePreventive medicine reports2021
Comparison between volunteer- and expert-led versions of a community-based weight-loss intervention.
Article in Preventive medicine reports, 2021. 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.
- Are individual or group interventions more effective for long-term weight loss in adults with obesity? A systematic review.Clinical obesity · 2022Pooled it
- Feasibility of a mindfulness-based weight loss program in an industry setting: A pilot study.PCN reports : psychiatry and clinical neurosciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study compared the effect of volunteer- and expert-led versions of a community-based weight-loss intervention in a non-randomized comparative trial conducted in Ibaraki, Japan from 2016 to 2017. Participants were 145 Japanese adults with overweightness or obesity, aged 20-69 years, with 77 in a volunteer-led group and 68 in an expert-led group. Both groups received the same program content and intervention period. Community volunteers were trained in four or five 3-hour training sessions while experts were highly trained and experienced professionals in the fields of exercise and nutrition prescription. Participants were also instructed to maintain a well-balanced, low-energy diet. The primary outcome measure was body weight change. In the volunteer- and expert-led groups, 58 of 77 (75%) and 61 of 68 (95%) participants completed the 12-week intervention, respectively. The mean (95% confidence interval, CI) weight loss of the volunteer-led group was 6.4 (95% CI: 5.6-7.2) kg, corresponding to 8.9% of initial body weight, while that of the expert-led group was 6.3 (95% CI: 5.5-7.1) kg, corresponding to 8.2% of the initial body weight. The proportion of participants who completed the course was significantly higher in the expert-led group (
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.