Effectiveness of behavioural and psychological interventions for managing obesity in children and adolescents: A systematic review and meta‐analysis framed using minimal important difference estimates based on <scp>GRADE</scp> guidance to inform a clinical practice guideline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of behavioural and psychological interventions for managing paediatric obesity. METHODS: Eligible studies, published between 1985 and 2022, included 0 to 18 year olds with outcomes reported ≥3 months post-baseline, including patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), cardiometabolic and anthropometric outcomes, and adverse events (AEs). We pooled data using a random effects model and assessed certainty of evidence (CoE) related to minimally important difference estimates for outcomes using GRADE. RESULTS: We included 73 unique RCTs (n = 6305 participants, 53% female). Intervention types included physical activity (n = 1437), nutrition (n = 447), psychological (n = 1336), technology-based (n = 901) or multicomponent (≥2 intervention types, n = 2184). Physical activity had a small effect on health-related quality of life (HRQoL), varying effects ranging from moderate to very large on blood pressure, lipids and insulin resistance, and a small effect on BMIz. Nutrition had a small effect on lipids, insulin resistance and BMIz. Psychological interventions showed a small effect on HRQoL and triglycerides and moderate benefits on depressive symptoms, while technology interventions showed small benefits on blood pressure and BMIz. Multicomponent interventions had a large benefit on anxiety, small benefit on depressive symptoms, with large to very large benefits on lipids, and small benefits for diastolic blood pressure, insulin resistance and BMIz. AEs were reported infrequently, and when reported, were described as mild. CONCLUSION: Physical activity and multicomponent interventions showed improvements in PROMs, cardiometabolic and anthropometric outcomes. Future trials should consistently measure PROMs, evaluate outcomes beyond the intervention period, and study children <6 years of age.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".