MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005136472 · doi:10.1136/bmj.39385.413113.25

Long term pharmacotherapy for obesity and overweight: updated meta-analysis

2007· review· en· W2005136472 on OpenAlexaff
Diana Rucker, Raj Padwal, Stephanie K Li, Cíntia Chaves Curioni, David C.W. Lau

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmacology and Obesity Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrlistatSibutramineMedicinePlaceboInternal medicineOverweightWeight lossMeta-analysisRimonabantConfidence intervalObesityEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To summarise the long term efficacy of anti-obesity drugs in reducing weight and improving health status. DESIGN: Updated meta-analysis of randomised trials. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, the Cochrane controlled trials register, the Current Science meta-register of controlled trials, and reference lists of identified articles. All data sources were searched from December 2002 (end date of last search) to December 2006. STUDIES REVIEWED: Double blind randomised placebo controlled trials of approved anti-obesity drugs used in adults (age over 18) for one year or longer. RESULTS: 30 trials of one to four years' duration met the inclusion criteria: 16 orlistat (n=10 631 participants), 10 sibutramine (n=2623), and four rimonabant (n=6365). Of these, 14 trials were new and 16 had previously been identified. Attrition rates averaged 30-40%. Compared with placebo, orlistat reduced weight by 2.9 kg (95% confidence interval 2.5 kg to 3.2 kg), sibutramine by 4.2 kg (3.6 kg to 4.7 kg), and rimonabant by 4.7 kg (4.1 kg to 5.3 kg). Patients receiving active drug treatment were significantly more likely to achieve 5% and 10% weight loss thresholds. Orlistat reduced the incidence of diabetes and improved concentrations of total cholesterol and low density lipoprotein cholesterol, blood pressure, and glycaemic control in patients with diabetes but increased rates of gastrointestinal side effects and slightly lowered concentrations of high density lipoprotein. Sibutramine improved [corrected] concentrations of high density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglycerides [corrected] Rimonabant improved concentrations of high density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglycerides, blood pressure, and glycaemic control in patients with diabetes but increased the risk of mood disorders. CONCLUSIONS: Orlistat, sibutramine, and rimonabant modestly reduce weight, have differing effects on cardiovascular risk profiles, and have specific adverse effects.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score0.110

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0220.047
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.224
GPT teacher head0.500
Teacher spread0.276 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations799
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicPharmacology and Obesity TreatmentFrench-language works237,207