MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161283213 · doi:10.9778/cmajo.20140047

Treatment of overweight and obesity in children and youth: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2015· review· en· W2161283213 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueCMAJ Open · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityMcMaster University Medical Centre
FundersPublic Health AgencyPublic Health Agency of Canada
KeywordsOverweightMedicineMeta-analysisObesityBody mass indexOrlistatConfidence intervalPsychological interventionChildhood obesityRandomized controlled trialPhysical therapyQuality of life (healthcare)Systematic reviewPediatricsInternal medicineMEDLINEWeight lossPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Childhood obesity is a public health concern. One-third of North American children and youth are overweight or obese. We reviewed the evidence of behavioural and pharmacological weight-management interventions on body mass index (BMI), BMI z-score and the prevalence of overweight and obesity in children and youth. METHODS: We updated the search of a previous review. We searched 4 databases up to August 2013. We included randomized trials of primary care-relevant behavioural (diet, exercise, lifestyle) and pharmacological (orlistat) interventions for treating overweight and obesity in children and youth aged 2-18 years if 6-month post-baseline data were provided for BMI, BMI z-score or prevalence of overweight and obesity. In addition, we examined secondary health outcomes such as lipid and glucose levels, blood pressure, quality of life and physical fitness. We included any study reporting harms. We performed meta-analyses when possible, and we examined the features of interventions that showed benefits. RESULTS: Thirty-one studies (29 behavioural, 2 pharmacological and behavioural) were included. Both intervention types showed a significant effect on BMI or BMI z-score in favour of treatment (behavioural: standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.73 to -0.36; orlistat plus behavioural: SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.60 to -0.25). Studies reported no significant difference between groups in the likelihood of reduced prevalence of overweight or overweight and obesity. Pooled estimates for blood pressure and quality of life showed significant benefits in favour of treatment (systolic blood pressure mean difference [MD] -3.42, 95% CI -6.65 to -0.29; diastolic blood pressure MD -3.39, 95% CI -5.17 to -1.60; quality of life MD 2.10, 95% CI 0.60 to 3.60). Gastrointestinal difficulties were more common in youth taking orlistat than in the control group (risk ratio 3.77, 95% CI 2.56 to 5.55). We saw much variability across efficacious interventions. INTERPRETATION: Low- to moderate-quality evidence suggests behavioural treatments are associated with a medium effect in terms of reduced BMI or BMI z-score compared with a small effect shown by combined pharmacological-behavioural interventions. Future research should evaluate active weight maintenance interventions in adolescents with longer follow-up and examine the effectiveness of combined pharmacological and behavioural interventions. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO no. CRD42012002754.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.825
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.259 · 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