MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2809622219 · doi:10.1111/eci.12982

Environmental risk factors and nonpharmacological and nonsurgical interventions for obesity: An umbrella review of meta‐analyses of cohort studies and randomized controlled trials

2018· review· en· W2809622219 on OpenAlexaff
Marco Solmi, Cristiano A. Köhler, Brendon Stubbs, Ai Koyanagi, Beatrice Bortolato, Francesco Monaco, Davy Vancampfort, Myrela O. Machado, Michaël Maes, Ioanna Tzoulaki, Joseph Firth, John P. A. Ioannidis, André F. Carvalho

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Clinical Investigation · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersEuropean Regional Development FundKing's College LondonInstituto de Salud Carlos IIINational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsMedicineOverweightPsychological interventionObesityMeta-analysisObservational studyRandomized controlled trialChildhood obesityCohort studyCohortSystematic reviewPhysical therapyPediatricsMEDLINEInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Multiple environmental factors have been implicated in obesity, and multiple interventions, besides drugs and surgery, have been assessed in obese patients. Results are scattered across many studies and meta-analyses, and they often mix obese and overweight individuals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched through 21 January 2017 for meta-analyses of cohort studies assessing environmental risk factors for obesity, and randomized controlled trials investigating nonpharmacological and nonsurgical therapeutic interventions for obesity. We excluded data on overweight participants. Evidence from observational studies was graded according to criteria that included the statistical significance of the random-effects summary estimate and of the largest study in a meta-analysis, the number of obesity cases, heterogeneity between studies, 95% prediction intervals, small-study effects and excess significance. The evidence of intervention studies for obesity was assessed with the GRADE framework. RESULTS: Fifty-four articles met eligibility criteria, including 26 meta-analyses of environmental risk factors (166 studies) and 46 meta-analyses of nondrug, nonsurgical interventions (206 trials). In adults, the only risk factor with convincing evidence was depression, and childhood obesity, adolescent obesity, childhood abuse and short sleep duration had highly suggestive evidence. Infancy weight gain during the first year of life, depression and low maternal education had convincing evidence for association with paediatric obesity. All interventions had low or very-low-quality evidence with one exception of moderate-quality evidence for one comparison (no differences in efficacy between brief lifestyle primary care interventions and other interventions for paediatric obesity). Summary effect sizes were mostly small across compared interventions (maximum 5.1 kg in adults and 1.78 kg in children) and even these estimates may be inflated. CONCLUSIONS: Depression, obesity in earlier age groups, short sleep duration, childhood abuse and low maternal education have the strongest support among proposed risk factors for obesity. Furthermore, there is no high-quality evidence to recommend treating obesity with a specific nonpharmacological and nonsurgical intervention among many available, and whatever benefits in terms of magnitude of weight loss appear small.

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)0.049
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.119
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.258

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0490.119
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.036
Bibliometrics0.0130.014
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.566
GPT teacher head0.555
Teacher spread0.012 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations90
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Clinical InvestigationSame topicObesity, Physical Activity, DietFrench-language works237,207