ArticleObesity pillars2024
Efficacy of in-person versus digital enhanced lifestyle interventions in adults with overweight and obesity.
Article in Obesity pillars, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimizing Obesity Management With GLP-1 Agonist Medication Through Mobile Health Technology, Nutrition Therapy, and Progressive Strength Training: A Retrospective Program Review.Obesity science & practice · 2026Article
- Virtual Education Protocol for Sustainable Lifestyle Modifications.International journal of preventive medicine · 2025Article
- Lifestyle Interventions to Reduce Cardiovascular Disease Risk in Mothers with Young Children: A Scoping Review.Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Lifestyle interventions (LIs) are the cornerstone for obesity management. The Mayo Clinic Diet (MCD) offers two approaches for LIs: the In-Person LI (IPLI) and the Digital Enhanced LI (DELI). The IPLI includes a 2-day in-person program with monthly follow-ups, whereas the DELI provides on-demand digital tools. The comparative efficacy of these approaches is currently unknown. Methods: This retrospective study included two cohorts of adults with a body mass index (BMI) of ≥25 kg/m Results: The study included 133 participants in the IPLI cohort (mean age 46.3 years, 65.4 % female, BMI 36.4) and 9603 in the DELI cohort (mean age 60.1 years, 85.0 % female, BMI 33.1). The DELI group achieved superior TBWL% at 1, 3, and 6 months compared to the IPLI group (3.4 % vs. 1.5 %, 4.7 % vs. 2.4 %, 5.3 % vs. 2.9 %, respectively; p < 0.001). After adjusting for age, gender, and starting weight, the DELI group maintained a higher TBWL% (difference 2.0 %; 95 % CI [1.0, 3.0], p < 0.001) and a greater proportion of participants achieved >5 % TBWL at 6 months (OR 1.66; 95 % CI [1.08, 2.55], p < 0.023). Conclusion: The DELI approach resulted in superior weight loss outcomes compared to the IPLI. Further research is needed to explore how digital tools can improve weight loss effectiveness.
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.