Dataset Information

The effect of computers for weight loss: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The use of computers to deliver education and support strategies has been shown to be effective in a variety of conditions. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the impact of computer-based technology on interventions for reducing weight.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Google Scholar and ClinicalTrials.gov (all updated through June 2010) for randomized controlled trials evaluating the effect of computer-based technology on education or support interventions aimed at reducing weight in overweight or obese adults. We calculated weighted mean differences (WMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) using random effects models.

Results

Eleven trials with 13 comparisons met inclusion criteria. Based on six comparisons, subjects who received a computer-based intervention as an addition to the standard intervention given to both groups lost significantly more weight (WMD -1.48 kg, 95% CI -2.52, -0.43). Conversely, based on six comparisons, subjects for whom computer-based technology was substituted to deliver an identical or highly comparable intervention to that of the control group lost significantly less weight (WMD 1.47 kg, 95% CI 0.13, 2.81). Significantly different weight loss seen in "addition" comparisons with less than six months of follow-up (WMD -1.95 kg, 95% CI -3.50, -0.40, two comparisons) was not seen in comparisons with longer follow-up (-1.08 kg, 95% CI -2.50, 0.34, four comparisons). Analyses based on quality and publication date did not substantially differ.

Conclusions

While the addition of computer-based technology to weight loss interventions led to statistically greater weight loss, the magnitude (<1.5 kg) was small and unsustained.

SUBMITTER: Reed VA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3250551 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The effect of computers for weight loss: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

Reed Virginia A VA Schifferdecker Karen E KE Rezaee Michael E ME O'Connor Sharon S Larson Robin J RJ

Journal of general internal medicine 20110730 1

<h4>Background</h4>The use of computers to deliver education and support strategies has been shown to be effective in a variety of conditions. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the impact of computer-based technology on interventions for reducing weight.<h4>Methods</h4>We searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Google Scholar and ClinicalTrials.gov (all updated through June 2010) for randomized controlled trials evaluating the effect of computer-based technology ...[more]

PMID: 21805218

Similar Datasets

Project description:Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of lifestyle modification have reported beneficial effects of interventions, compared to control. Whether participation in the control group has benefits is unknown. To determine whether control group participants experience weight loss during the course of RCTs. After prospective registration (PROSPERO CRD42021233070), we conducted searches in Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane library and Clinicaltrials.gov databases from inception to May 2021 without language restriction to capture RCTs on dietary advice or physical activity interventions in adults with overweight, obesity or metabolic syndrome. Data extraction and study quality assessment was performed by two independent reviewers. Weight loss in the control group, i.e., the difference between baseline and post-intervention, was pooled using random effects model generating mean difference and 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistical test. Subgroup meta-analysis was performed stratifying by follow-up period, type of control group protocols and high-quality studies. Among the 22 included studies (4032 participants), the risk of bias was low in 9 (40%) studies. Overall, the controls groups experienced weight loss of - 0.41 kg (95% CI - 0.53 to - 0.28; I2 = 73.5% p < 0.001). To identify a result that is an outlier, we inspected the forest plot for spread of the point estimates and the confidence intervals. The magnitude of the benefit was related to the duration of follow-up (- 0.51 kg, 95% CI - 0.68, - 0.3, for 1-4 months follow-up; - 0.32 kg, 95% CI - 0.58, - 0.07, 5-12 months; - 0.20 kg, 95% CI - 0.49, 0.10, ≥ 12 months). In high-quality studies we found an overall weight loss mean difference of - 0.16 (95% CI - 0.39, 0.09) with a considerable heterogeneity (I2 = 74%; p < 0.000). Among studies including control group in waiting lists and combining standard care, advice and material, no heterogeneity was found (I2 = 0%, p = 0.589) and (I2 = 0%, p = 0.438); and the mean difference was - 0.84 kg (95% CI - 2.47, 0.80) and - 0.65 kg (95% CI - 1.03, - 0.27) respectively. Participation in control groups of RCTs of lifestyle interventions had a benefit in terms of weight loss in meta-analysis with heterogeneity. These results should be used to interpret the benefits observed with respect to intervention effect in trials. That control groups accrue benefits should be included in patient information sheets to encourage participation in future trials among patients with overweight and obesity.

Project description:BackgroundPhysical activity (PA) is a vital factor in promoting health in the workforce. Mobile health (mHealth) interventions have recently emerged in workplace health promotion as an effective strategy for inducing changes in health behaviors among workers; however, the effectiveness of mHealth interventions in promoting PA and weight loss for workers is unclear.ObjectiveThis study aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of current evidence on the effectiveness of mHealth interventions in promoting PA and weight loss among workers.MethodsWe searched relevant databases, including PubMed, Embase, CINAHL Complete, and the Cochrane Library, for publications on mHealth interventions in the English or Korean language from inception to December 2020. Randomized controlled trials that evaluated the effectiveness of mHealth in improving PA and weight loss were retrieved. A meta-analysis with a random effects model and subgroup analyses was performed on PA types and mHealth intervention characteristics.ResultsA total of 8 studies were included in this analysis. More than half of the studies (5/8, 63%) were identified as having a high risk of bias. The mHealth intervention group showed a significant improvement in PA (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.22, 95% CI 0.03-0.41; P<.001; I2=78%). No significant difference in weight loss was observed when comparing the intervention group with the control groups (SMD 0.02, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.10; P=.48; I2=0%). A subgroup analysis was also performed; walking activity (SMD 0.70, 95% CI 0.21-1.19; P<.001; I2=83.3%), a multicomponent program (SMD 0.19, 95% CI 0.05-0.33; P=.03; I2=57.4%), objective measurement (SMD 0.58, 95% CI 0.05-1.10; P<.001; I2=87.3%), and 2 or more delivery modes (SMD 0.44, 95% CI 0.01-0.87; P<.001; I2=85.1%) were significantly associated with an enhancement in PA.ConclusionsThis study suggests that mHealth interventions are effective for improving PA among workers. Future studies that assess long-term efficacy with a larger population are recommended.

Project description:In 2012, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a warning regarding potential adverse effects of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) on cognition, based on the Adverse Events Reporting System and a review of the medical literature. We aimed to synthesize randomized clinical trial (RCTs) evidence on the association between statin therapy and cognitive outcomes.We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL through December 2012, and reviewed published systematic reviews of statin treatment. We sought RCTs that compared statin treatment versus placebo or standard care, and reported at least one cognitive outcome (frequency of adverse cognitive events or measurements using standard neuropsychological cognitive test scores). Studies reporting sufficient information to calculate effect sizes were included in meta-analyses. Standardized and unstandardized mean differences were calculated for continuous outcomes for global cognition and for pre-specified cognitive domains. The main outcome was change in cognition measured by neuropsychological tests; an outcome of secondary interest was the frequency of adverse cognitive events observed during follow-up.We identified 25 RCTs (all placebo-controlled) reporting cognitive outcomes in 46,836 subjects, of which 23 RCTs reported cognitive test results in 29,012 participants. Adverse cognitive outcomes attributable to statins were rarely reported in trials involving cognitively normal or impaired subjects. Furthermore, meta-analysis of cognitive test data (14 studies; 27,643 participants) failed to show significant adverse effects of statins on all tests of cognition in either cognitively normal subjects (standardized mean difference 0.01, 95% confidence interval, CI, -0.01 to 0.03, p?=?0.42) or Alzheimer's disease subjects (standardized mean difference -0.05, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.10, p?=?0.38).Statin therapy was not associated with cognitive impairment in RCTs. These results raise questions regarding the continued merit of the FDA warning about potential adverse effects of statins on cognition.

Dataset Information

The effect of computers for weight loss: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

The effect of computers for weight loss: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets