MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4224323771 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-053523

Effect of obesity treatment interventions in preschool children aged 2–6 years: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2022· review· en· W4224323771 on OpenAlexafffund
Samantha Nordlund, Patrick G. McPhee, Ramy Gabarin, Charlotte Deacon, Lawrence Mbuagbaw, Katherine M. Morrison

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Canadian institutionsSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonImpactMcMaster University
FundersInstitute of Human Development, Child and Youth HealthCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisPsychological interventionObesityChildhood obesityPediatricsAlternative medicinePublic healthMEDLINEFamily medicineGerontologyOverweightPsychiatryInternal medicineNursingPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives (1) To summarise the literature on the impact of paediatric weight management interventions on health outcomes in preschool age children with overweight or obesity and (2) to evaluate the completeness of intervention description and real-world applicability using validated tools. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and PsychInfo were searched between 10 March 2015 and 21 November 2021. Eligibility criteria Randomised controlled trials addressing weight management in preschool children (2–6 years) with overweight or obesity. Data extraction and synthesis Two reviewers independently extracted key information from each study and assessed risk of bias. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed where there was evidence for homogeneous effects. The certainty of evidence was assessed by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Results Of the 16 908 studies retrieved, 9 trials (1687 participants) met the inclusion criteria. These interventions used motivational interviewing (MI) or multicomponent educational interventions related to health behaviour approaches and were 6–12 months in duration. All studies contained some risk of bias. A difference was found in the intervention groups compared with controls for body mass index (BMI) z score (mean difference −0.10, 95% CI −0.12 to −0.09; eight trials, 1491 participants; p<0.001; I268%), though there was substantial heterogeneity. There were no subgroup effects between studies using MI compared with studies using multicomponent interventions. The certainty of the evidence was considered low. The trials were reported in sufficient detail and were considered pragmatic. Conclusions Paediatric weight management interventions delivered to the parents of young children with obesity result in small declines in BMI z score. The results should be interpreted cautiously as they were inconsistent and the quality of the evidence was low. PROSPERO registration number CRD42020166843.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.095

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0260.047
Bibliometrics0.0100.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.169
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.301 · 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

Citations10
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet→French-language works237,207→