Dataset Information

Effect of breakfast on weight and energy intake: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To examine the effect of regular breakfast consumption on weight change and energy intake in people living in high income countries. DESIGN:Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES:PubMed, Ovid Medline, and CINAHL were searched for randomised controlled trials published between January 1990 and January 2018 investigating the effect of breakfast on weight or energy intake. ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform search portal were also searched in October 2018 to identify any registered yet unpublished or ongoing trials. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES:Randomised controlled trials from high income countries in adults comparing breakfast consumption with no breakfast consumption that included a measure of body weight or energy intake. Two independent reviewers extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Random effects meta-analyses of the effect of breakfast consumption on weight and daily energy intake were performed. RESULTS:Of 13 included trials, seven examined the effect of eating breakfast on weight change, and 10 examined the effect on energy intake. Meta-analysis of the results found a small difference in weight favouring participants who skipped breakfast (mean difference 0.44 kg, 95% confidence interval 0.07 to 0.82), but there was some inconsistency across trial results (I2=43%). Participants assigned to breakfast had a higher total daily energy intake than those assigned to skip breakfast (mean difference 259.79 kcal/day, 78.87 to 440.71; 1 kcal=4.18 kJ), despite substantial inconsistency across trial results (I2=80%). All of the included trials were at high or unclear risk of bias in at least one domain and had only short term follow-ups (mean period seven weeks for weight, two weeks for energy intake). As the quality of the included studies was mostly low, the findings should be interpreted with caution. CONCLUSION:This study suggests that the addition of breakfast might not be a good strategy for weight loss, regardless of established breakfast habit. Caution is needed when recommending breakfast for weight loss in adults, as it could have the opposite effect. Further randomised controlled trials of high quality are needed to examine the role of breakfast eating in the approach to weight management. STUDY REGISTRATION:PROSPERO registration number CRD42017057687.

SUBMITTER: Sievert K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6352874 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effect of breakfast on weight and energy intake: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Sievert Katherine K Hussain Sultana Monira SM Page Matthew J MJ Wang Yuanyuan Y Hughes Harrison J HJ Malek Mary M Cicuttini Flavia M FM

BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20190130

<h4>Objective</h4>To examine the effect of regular breakfast consumption on weight change and energy intake in people living in high income countries.<h4>Design</h4>Systematic review and meta-analysis.<h4>Data sources</h4>PubMed, Ovid Medline, and CINAHL were searched for randomised controlled trials published between January 1990 and January 2018 investigating the effect of breakfast on weight or energy intake. ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials ...[more]

PMID: 30700403

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the relation between total fat intake and body weight in adults and children.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and cohort studies.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to June 2010.Inclusion criteriaRandomised controlled trials and cohort studies of adults or children that compared lower versus usual total fat intake and assessed the effects on measures of body fatness (body weight, body mass index, or waist circumference) after at least six months (randomised controlled trials) or one year (in cohorts). Randomised controlled trials with any intention to reduce weight in participants or confounded by additional medical or lifestyle interventions were excluded.Data extractionData were extracted and validity was assessed independently and in duplicate. Random effects meta-analyses, subgroups, sensitivity analyses, and metaregression were done.Results33 randomised controlled trials (73,589 participants) and 10 cohort studies were included, all from developed countries. Meta-analysis of data from the trials suggested that diets lower in total fat were associated with lower relative body weight (by 1.6 kg, 95% confidence interval -2.0 to -1.2 kg, I(2)=75%, 57,735 participants). Lower weight gain in the low fat arm compared with the control arm was consistent across trials, but the size of the effect varied. Metaregression suggested that greater reduction in total fat intake and lower baseline fat intake were associated with greater relative weight loss, explaining most of the heterogeneity. The significant effect of a low fat diet on weight was not lost in sensitivity analyses (including removing trials that expended greater time and attention on low fat groups). Lower total fat intake also led to lower body mass index (-0.51 kg/m(2), 95% confidence interval -0.76 to -0.26, nine trials, I(2)=77%) and waist circumference (by 0.3 cm, 95% confidence interval -0.58 to -0.02, 15,671 women, one trial). There was no suggestion of negative effects on other cardiovascular risk factors (lipid levels or blood pressure). GRADE assessment suggested high quality evidence for the relation between total fat intake and body weight in adults. Only one randomised controlled trial and three cohort studies were found in children and young people, but these confirmed a positive relation between total fat intake and weight gain.ConclusionsThere is high quality, consistent evidence that reduction of total fat intake has been achieved in large numbers of both healthy and at risk trial participants over many years. Lower total fat intake leads to small but statistically significant and clinically meaningful, sustained reductions in body weight in adults in studies with baseline fat intakes of 28-43% of energy intake and durations from six months to over eight years. Evidence supports a similar effect in children and young people.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:Randomised controlled trials (RCT) are the gold standard to provide unbiased data. However, when patients have a treatment preference, randomisation may influence participation and outcomes (eg, external and internal validity). The aim of this study was to assess the influence of patients' preference in RCTs by analysing partially randomised patient preference trials (RPPT); an RCT and preference cohort combined. DESIGN:Systematic review and meta-analyses. DATA SOURCES:MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES:RPPTs published between January 2005 and October 2018 reporting on allocation of patients to randomised and preference cohorts were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS:Two independent reviewers extracted data. The main outcomes were the difference in external validity (participation and baseline characteristics) and internal validity (lost to follow-up, crossover and the primary outcome) between the randomised and the preference cohort within each RPPT, compared in a meta-regression using a Wald test. Risk of bias was not assessed, as no quality assessment for RPPTs has yet been developed. RESULTS:In total, 117 of 3734 identified articles met screening criteria and 44 were eligible (24 873 patients). The participation rate in RPPTs was >95% in 14 trials (range: 48%-100%) and the randomisation refusal rate was >50% in 26 trials (range: 19%-99%). Higher education, female, older age, race and prior experience with one treatment arm were characteristics of patients declining randomisation. The lost to follow-up and cross-over rate were significantly higher in the randomised cohort compared with the preference cohort. Following the meta-analysis, the reported primary outcomes were comparable between both cohorts of the RPPTs, mean difference 0.093 (95% CI -0.178 to 0.364, p=0.502). CONCLUSIONS:Patients' preference led to a substantial proportion of a specific patient group refusing randomisation, while it did not influence the primary outcome within an RPPT. Therefore, RPPTs could increase external validity without compromising the internal validity compared with RCTs. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42019094438.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To assess the association between intake of non-sugar sweeteners (NSS) and important health outcomes in generally healthy or overweight/obese adults and children. DESIGN:Systematic review following standard Cochrane review methodology. DATA SOURCES:Medline (Ovid), Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Clinicaltrials.gov, and reference lists of relevant publications. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES:Studies including generally healthy adults or children with or without overweight or obesity were eligible. Included study designs allowed for a direct comparison of no intake or lower intake of NSS with higher NSS intake. NSSs had to be clearly named, the dose had to be within the acceptable daily intake, and the intervention duration had to be at least seven days. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Body weight or body mass index, glycaemic control, oral health, eating behaviour, preference for sweet taste, cancer, cardiovascular disease, kidney disease, mood, behaviour, neurocognition, and adverse effects. RESULTS:The search resulted in 13?941 unique records. Of 56 individual studies that provided data for this review, 35 were observational studies. In adults, evidence of very low and low certainty from a limited number of small studies indicated a small beneficial effect of NSSs on body mass index (mean difference -0.6, 95% confidence interval -1.19 to -0.01; two studies, n=174) and fasting blood glucose (-0.16 mmol/L, -0.26 to -0.06; two, n=52). Lower doses of NSSs were associated with lower weight gain (-0.09 kg, -0.13 to -0.05; one, n=17?934) compared with higher doses of NSSs (very low certainty of evidence). For all other outcomes, no differences were detected between the use and non-use of NSSs, or between different doses of NSSs. No evidence of any effect of NSSs was seen on overweight or obese adults or children actively trying to lose weight (very low to moderate certainty). In children, a smaller increase in body mass index z score was observed with NSS intake compared with sugar intake (-0.15, -0.17 to -0.12; two, n=528, moderate certainty of evidence), but no significant differences were observed in body weight (-0.60 kg, -1.33 to 0.14; two, n=467, low certainty of evidence), or between different doses of NSSs (very low to moderate certainty). CONCLUSIONS:Most health outcomes did not seem to have differences between the NSS exposed and unexposed groups. Of the few studies identified for each outcome, most had few participants, were of short duration, and their methodological and reporting quality was limited; therefore, confidence in the reported results is limited. Future studies should assess the effects of NSSs with an appropriate intervention duration. Detailed descriptions of interventions, comparators, and outcomes should be included in all reports. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:Prospero CRD42017047668.

Project description:BackgroundPsychiatric patients have more physical health problems and much shorter life expectancies compared to the general population, due primarily to premature cardiovascular disease. A multi-causal model which includes a higher prevalence of risk factors has provided a valid explanation. It takes into consideration not only risks such as gender, age, and family history that are inherently non-modifiable, but also those such as obesity, smoking, diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia that are modifiable through behavioural changes and improved care. Thus, it is crucial to focus on factors that increase cardiovascular risk. Obesity in particular has been associated with both the lifestyle habits and the side effects of antipsychotic medications. The present systematic review and meta-analysis aims at collecting and updating available evidence on the efficacy of non-pharmacological health promotion programmes for psychotic patients in randomised clinical trials.MethodsWe systematically reviewed the randomised controlled trials from 1990 onward, in which psychoeducational and/or cognitive-behavioural interventions aimed at weight loss or prevention of weight gain in patients with psychosis had been compared to treatment as usual. We carried out a meta-analysis and pooled the results of the studies with Body Mass Index as primary outcome.ResultsThe results of the meta-analysis show an effect toward the experimental group. At the end of the intervention phase there is a -0.98 kg/m(2) reduction in the mean Body Mass Index of psychotic subjects. Notably, prevention studies with individual psychoeducational programmes that include diet and/or physical activity seem to have the highest impact.ConclusionsWhen compared with treatment as usual in psychotic patients, preventive and individual lifestyle interventions that include diet and physical activity generally prove to be effective in reducing weight. Physical screening and monitoring programmes are well accepted by patients and can be implemented in a variety of settings. A weight loss of 0.98 points in the Body Mass Index corresponds to a loss of 3.12% of the initial weight. This percentage is below the 5% to 10% weight loss deemed sufficient to improve weight-related complications such as hypertension, type II diabetes, and dyslipidemia. However, it is reported that outcomes associated with metabolic risk factors may have greater health implications than weight changes alone. Therefore, in addition to weight reduction, the assessment of metabolic parameters to monitor other independent risk factors should also be integrated into physical health promotion and management in people with mental disorders.

Dataset Information

Effect of breakfast on weight and energy intake: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Publications

Effect of breakfast on weight and energy intake: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets