Evidence mapPaperPMID 35972742Full record

Trial reportJAMA network open2022

Efficacy of a Commercial Weight Management Program Compared With a Do-It-Yourself Approach: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Deborah F Tate, Lesley D Lutes, Maria Bryant, Kimberly P Truesdale, Karen E Hatley, Zoe Griffiths, Tricia S Tang, Louise D Padgett, Angela M Pinto, June Stevens and 1 more

Erratum issued Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA network open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to trial NCT03571893 (Randomized Controlled Trial of an International Commercial Program on Weight Loss and Health Outcomes), which is not on this map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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.

NCT03571893 nacompletednot on this map

Randomized Controlled Trial of an International Commercial Program on Weight Loss and Health Outcomes

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of North Carolina, Chapel HillRan2018 to 2019Enrolled373ConditionsWeight Loss, Weight Change, Body, Obesity, Diet ModificationArmsWeight Watchers Freestyle (Flex), DIY Personal Plan
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Error in Results.JAMA network open · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Deborah F TateDepartment of Nutrition, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Lesley D LutesDepartment of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Okanagan Campus, Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada.
Maria BryantDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, United Kingdom.
Kimberly P TruesdaleDepartment of Nutrition, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Karen E HatleyLineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Zoe GriffithsWW, New York, New York.
Tricia S TangDepartment of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver Campus, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Louise D PadgettDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, United Kingdom.
Angela M PintoDepartment of Psychology, Baruch College/City University of New York, New York.
June StevensDepartment of Nutrition, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Gary D FosterCenter for Weight and Eating Disorders, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Funding

UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CLINICAL NUTRITION RESEARCH UNITP30DK056350 · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · 1999 to 2025
$5.9M
NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK056350
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Given the prevalence of obesity, accessible and effective treatment options are needed to manage obesity and its comorbid conditions. Commercial weight management programs are a potential solution to the lack of available treatment, providing greater access at lower cost than clinic-based approaches, but few commercial programs have been rigorously evaluated. Objective: To compare the differences in weight change between individuals randomly assigned to a commercial weight management program and those randomly assigned to a do-it-yourself (DIY) approach. Design, Setting, and Participants: This 1-year, randomized clinical trial conducted in the United States, Canada, and United Kingdom between June 19, 2018, and November 30, 2019, enrolled 373 adults aged 18 to 75 years with a body mass index (BMI; calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared) of 25 to 45. Assessors were blinded to treatment conditions. Interventions: A widely available commercial weight management program that included reduced requirements for dietary self-monitoring and recommendations for a variety of DIY approaches to weight loss. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were the difference in weight change between the 2 groups at 3 and 12 months. The a priori hypothesis was that the commercial program would result in greater weight loss than the DIY approach at 3 and 12 months. Analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis. Results: The study include 373 participants (272 women [72.9%]; mean [SD] BMI, 33.8 [5.2]; 77 [20.6%] aged 18-34 years, 74 [19.8%] aged 35-43 years, 82 [22.0%] aged 44-52 years, and 140 [37.5%] aged 53-75 years). At 12 months, retention rates were 88.8% (166 of 187) for the commercial weight management program group and 95.7% (178 of 186) for the DIY group. At 3 months, participants in the commercial program had a mean (SD) weight loss of -3.8 (4.1) kg vs -1.8 (3.7) kg among those in the DIY group. At 12 months, participants in the commercial program had a mean (SD) weight loss of -4.4 (7.3) kg vs -1.7 (7.3) kg among those in the DIY group. The mean difference between groups was -2.0 kg (97.5% CI, -2.9 to -1.1 kg) at 3 months (P < .001) and -2.6 kg (97.5% CI, -4.3 to -0.8 kg) at 12 months (P < .001). A greater percentage of participants in the commercial program group than participants in the DIY group achieved loss of 5% of body weight at both 3 months (40.7% [72 of 177] vs 18.6% [34 of 183]) and 12 months (42.8% [71 of 166] vs 24.7% [44 of 178]). Conclusions and Relevance: Adults randomly assigned to a commercial weight management program with reduced requirements for dietary self-monitoring lost more weight and were more likely to achieve weight loss of 5% at 3 and 12 months than adults following a DIY approach. This study contributes data on the efficacy of commercial weight management programs and DIY weight management approaches. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03571893.

Indexed as

Weight Reduction ProgramsAdultBody Mass IndexFemaleHumansObesityTreatment OutcomeUnited StatesWeight Loss

Identifiers

PMID35972742
PMCPMC9382439

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.