Letter to the Editor: “Pediatric Obesity—Assessment, Treatment, and Prevention: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline”
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
We read with interest the recently published clinical practice guidelines for preventing and treating childhood obesity (1). The authors reported their evaluation of the quality of the evidence and an assessment of the strength of recommendations according to objective criteria across a diverse literature. In our view, however, this excellent and comprehensive report does not mention two relevant issues: attrition and enrollment. These issues are likely to be of concern for clinicians, administrators, and researchers because they can have a substantial impact on clinical care. Recent reviews showed that attrition from pediatric weight management is common, with estimates varying widely across studies (4% to 83%; median, 37%) (2, 3). It is apparent that a large number of children with obesity (and their families) choose to discontinue weight management prematurely, an occurrence that can lead to inefficient use of clinical resources, can be discouraging for families, and can lead to frustration for clinicians who deliver services and interventions. Attrition has become increasingly well characterized over recent years, which reinforces the importance of acquiring empirical data through randomized controlled trials and quality improvement initiatives as next steps. This will inform evidence-based strategies for retaining families so they achieve optimal benefits. Comparatively, less data are available regarding treatment enrollment, but contemporary analyses are instructive. Shaffer et al. (4) found that of the 4783 children referred to one multidisciplinary pediatric weight management clinic over a 4.4-year period, only 41.2% attended at least one appointment. In preliminary analyses of a provincial data set of ∼2000 children referred to three different multidisciplinary weight management clinics over a 3-year period in Alberta, Canada, approximately two-thirds of families never attended a clinic appointment (5). These two reports are noteworthy because even the “best” intervention for treating pediatric obesity offers no benefit to families unless they are ready, willing, and able to enroll in care. In light of data suggesting that a minimum of 25 hours of clinical contact is necessary to achieve clinically meaningful weight loss (6), there is clear value in helping children and their families to enroll and remain engaged in services and interventions for treating pediatric obesity and improving health-related outcomes. In our collective experience, only the vast minority of children receive this intervention dose. We are confident that these new guidelines will have a positive influence on the prevention and treatment of pediatric obesity; they represent a meaningful and important step forward from the preexisting guidelines. With increased research and clinical attention on the imperative to mitigate attrition and enhance enrollment, we are optimistic that services and interventions for preventing and treating pediatric obesity will better optimize outcomes for children and families. Disclosure Summary: The authors have nothing to disclose.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,026 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,022 | 0,018 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,006 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».