Weight Loss Interventions in Older Adults with Obesity: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials Since 2005
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To identify geriatric obesity interventions that can guide clinical recommendations. DESIGN: Systematic review using Medline (PubMed), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, CINAHL, EMBASE (Ovid), and PsycINFO (Proquest) from January 1, 2005, to October 12, 2015, to identify English-language randomized controlled trials. PARTICIPANTS: ). INTERVENTIONS: Behavioral weight loss interventions not involving pharmacological or procedural therapies lasting 6 months or longer. MEASUREMENTS: Two investigators performed the systematic review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses criteria and achieved a high concordance rate (97.3%) in summarizing the primary outcomes. The three primary outcomes were weight loss, physical performance, and quality of life. RESULTS: Of 5,741 citations, 19 were included. (Six studies were unique, and the remaining 13 were based on the same study population.) Duration ranged from 6 to 18 months (n = 405 participants, age range 66.7-71.1). Weight loss in the intervention groups ranged from 0.5 to 10.7 kg (0.1-9.3%). Five studies had a resistance exercise program accompanying a dietary component. Greater weight loss was observed in groups with a dietary component than those with exercise alone. Exercise alone led to better physical function but no significant weight loss. Combined dietary and exercise components led to the greatest improvement in physical performance measures and quality of life and mitigated reductions in muscle and bone mass observed in diet-only study arms. Heterogeneous outcomes were observed, which limited the ability to synthesize the data quantitatively. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence supporting geriatric obesity interventions to improve physical function and quality of life is of low to moderate quality. Well-designed trials are needed in this population.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.032 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".