Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39327619›Full record

SynthesisThe international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity2024

Comparing caloric restriction regimens for effective weight management in adults: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Jinming Huang, Yi Li, Maohua Chen, Zhaolun Cai, Zhen Cai, Zhiyuan Jiang

Abstract readSystematic ReviewComparative StudyNetwork Meta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Combined torso and foot heat exposure reduces acuteTemperature (Austin, Tex.) · 2026
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
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.

Jinming Huang *Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Key Laboratory of Rehabilitation Medicine, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Yi Li *Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Key Laboratory of Rehabilitation Medicine, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Maohua ChenDepartment of Plastic Surgery, Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Zhaolun CaiDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Zhen CaiDepartment of Plastic Surgery, Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, Sichuan, China. caizhen1976@126.com.
Zhiyuan JiangDepartment of Plastic Surgery, Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, Sichuan, China. dr.jiangzhiyuan@foxmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2483-3413

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRandomized controlled trials have confirmed the effectiveness of four prevalent caloric restriction regimens in reducing obesity-related health risks. However, there is no consensus on the optimal regimen for weight management in adults.

methodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL up to January 15, 2024, for randomized controlled trials (RCT) involving adults, evaluating the weight-loss effects of alternate day fasting (ADF), short-term fasting (STF), time-restricted eating (TRE), and continuous energy restriction (CER). The primary outcome was body weight, with secondary outcomes including BMI, fat mass, lean mass, waist circumference, fasting glucose, HOMA-IR, and adverse events. Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted, ranking regimens using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve and the probability of being the best. Study quality was assessed using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis tool.

resultsData from 47 RCTs (representing 3363 participants) were included. ADF showed the most significant body weight loss (Mean difference (MD): -3.42; 95% Confidence interval (CI): -4.28 to -2.55), followed by TRE (MD: -2.25; 95% CI: -2.92 to -1.59). STF (MD: -1.87; 95% CI: -3.32 to -0.56) and CER (MD: -1.59; 95% CI: -2.42 to -0.79) rank third and fourth, respectively. STF lead to decline in lean mass (MD: -1.26; 95% CI: -2.16, -0.47). TRE showed benefits on fasting glucose (MD: -2.98; 95% CI: -4.7, -1.26). Subgroup analysis revealed all four caloric restriction regimens likely lead to modest weight loss after 1-3 months, with ADF ranked highest, but by 4-6 months, varying degrees of weight regain occur, particularly with CER, while interventions lasting 7-12 months may result in effective weight loss, with TRE potentially ranking first during both the 4-6 months and 7-12 months periods. ADF showing fewer and shorter-lasting physical symptoms.

conclusionAll four included regiments were effective in reducing body weight, with ADF likely having the most significant impact. Each regimen likely leads to modest weight loss after 1-3 months, followed by weight regain by 4-6 months. However, interventions lasting 7-12 months achieve greater weight loss overall.

trial registrationPROSPERO: CRD42022382478.

Indexed as

Caloric RestrictionFastingObesityWeight LossAdultBayes TheoremBody Mass IndexBody WeightHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAlternate day fastingBody weightCalorie restrictionIntermittent fastingShort-term fastingTime restrict eating

Identifiers

PMID39327619
PMCPMC11425986

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.