Dataset Information

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of meal replacements for weight loss.

ABSTRACT: Meal replacements (MR) are generally not recommended in clinical guidelines for the management of obesity. The aim of this review is to provide an up-to-date systematic evaluation of the effect of weight loss interventions incorporating MR compared with alternative interventions on weight change at 1 year in adults with overweight or obesity. Six electronic databases were searched from inception to the end of August 2018 for randomized controlled trials comparing the effect of MR with interventions that did not include MR on weight at 1 year. We excluded studies using diets providing <3347 kJ/(800 kcal)/day and those which used total diet replacement (TDR) from this review. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Twenty-three studies with 7884 adult participants were included. Six out of 23 studies were judged at low risk of bias across all domains, and 5/23 studies were judged at high risk of bias in at least one domain. Studies with similar intervention and comparators were grouped into five comparisons for analysis. Mean weight change at 1 year favoured the MR group relative to the control group in each comparison. In those comparisons where we conducted meta-analysis, in people assigned to a diet incorporating MR, mean difference was -1.44 kg (-2.48 to -0.39 kg; I2 = 38%) compared with alternative kinds of diets. In those assigned to a MR diet along with support, mean difference was -2.22 kg (-3.99 to -0.45, I2 = 81%) compared with other diets with support and -3.87 kg (-7.34 to -0.40; I2 = 60%) compared with other kinds of diet without support. In those assigned a MR diet with an enhanced level of support, mean difference was -6.13 kg (-7.35 to -4.91, I2 = 19%) compared with alternative diets and regular support. Programmes incorporating meal replacements led to greater weight loss at 1 year than comparator weight loss programmes and should be considered as a valid option for management of overweight and obesity in community and health care settings.

SUBMITTER: Astbury NM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6849863 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of meal replacements for weight loss.

Astbury Nerys M NM Piernas Carmen C Hartmann-Boyce Jamie J Lapworth Sophia S Aveyard Paul P Jebb Susan A SA

Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity 20190124 4

Meal replacements (MR) are generally not recommended in clinical guidelines for the management of obesity. The aim of this review is to provide an up-to-date systematic evaluation of the effect of weight loss interventions incorporating MR compared with alternative interventions on weight change at 1 year in adults with overweight or obesity. Six electronic databases were searched from inception to the end of August 2018 for randomized controlled trials comparing the effect of MR with interventi ...[more]

PMID: 30675990

Similar Datasets

Project description:ContextMany international clinical guidelines recommend that overweight and obese women lose weight prior to pregnancy to reduce the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes. Women who have recently given birth and plan future pregnancies are an important target population for preconception weight-loss interventions.ObjectiveA systematic review to evaluate postpartum dietary and/or physical activity interventions to promote weight loss and improve health in a subsequent pregnancy was conducted.Data sourcesFive databases-the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE (through PubMed), Embase, the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, and the International Clinical Trials Registry-were searched using the following terms: preconception, pregnancy, postpartum, pregnancy outcomes, body mass index, weight gain, weight loss, weight change, postpartum weight retention, dietary or lifestyle intervention, and randomiz(s)ed controlled trial. The date of last search was November 2017.Data extractionData were extracted from each identified study using a standard form. The primary outcomes were weight loss at the completion of the intervention and at follow-up assessments. Secondary endpoints included maternal and infant outcomes in a subsequent pregnancy.Data analysisMean differences (MDs) were calculated for continuous data and risk ratios for dichotomous data, both with 95%CIs.ResultsA total of 235 abstracts (193 after duplicates were excluded) were identified, from which 37 manuscripts were selected for full-text review. In total, 27 trials were identified for inclusion. Outcome data were available for approximately 75% of participants (n = 3485). A combined dietary and physical activity intervention provided post partum produced greater postpartum weight loss (MD, -2.49 kg; 95%CI, -3.34 to -1.63 kg [random-effects model]; 12 studies, 1156 women), which was maintained at 12 months post partum (MD, -2.41 kg; 95%CI, -3.89 to -0.93 kg [random-effects model]; 4 studies, 405 women), compared with no intervention. No studies reported maternal or infant health outcomes in a subsequent pregnancy.ConclusionsProviding a postpartum intervention is associated with weight loss after birth, but effects on maternal and infant health in a subsequent pregnancy are uncertain.

Project description:BackgroundObesity is a cardiovascular disease risk factor. Conventional weight loss (CWL) programmes focus on weight loss, however 'health, not weight loss, focused' (HNWL) programmes concentrate on improved health and well-being, irrespective of weight loss. What are the differences in CVD risk outcomes between these programmes?AimTo conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the effects of HNWL with CWL programmes on cardiovascular disease risk factors.MethodsWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ASSIA, clinical trial registers, commercial websites and reference lists for randomised controlled trials comparing the two programmes (initially searched up to August 2015 and searched updated to 5 April 2019). We used the Mantel-Haneszel fixed-effect model to pool results. Sub-group and sensitivity analyses that accounted for variations in length of follow-up, enhanced programmes and risk of bias dealt with heterogeneity.ResultsEight randomised controlled trials of 20,242 potential studies were included. Improvements in total cholesterol-HDL ratio (mean difference - 0.21 mmol/L, 95% confidence interval [- 3.91, 3.50]) and weight loss (- 0.28 kg [- 2.00, 1.44]) favoured HNWL compared to CWL programmes in the long term (53-104 week follow-up), whereas improvements in systolic (- 1.14 mmHg, [- 5.84, 3.56]) and diastolic (- 0.15 mmHg, [- 3.64, 3.34]) blood pressure favoured CWL programmes. These differences did not reach statistical significance. Statistically significant improvements in body satisfaction (- 4.30 [- 8.32, - 0.28]) and restrained eating behaviour (- 4.30 [- 6.77, - 1.83]) favoured HNWL over CWL programmes.ConclusionsWe found no long-term significant differences in improved CVD risk factors; however, body satisfaction and restrained eating behaviour improved more with HNWL compared to CWL programmes. Yet firm conclusions cannot be drawn from small studies with high losses to follow-up and data sometimes arising from a single small study.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42015019505.

Project description:Background:Lifestyle change treatments for weight loss produce medically meaningful weight reductions, but lost weight is usually regained. Meal replacements (MRs) represent one avenue for improving long-term weight loss. Another, nutrition-focused approach involves having participants make specific changes in the energy density, composition, and structure of the foods in their personal food environments. Objective:Three conditions were compared: behavior therapy (BT), BT plus MRs (BT+MR), and a nutrition-focused treatment aimed at modifying the home food environment (HFE). Design:Overweight and obese individuals (n = 262) were randomly assigned to 1 of the 3 conditions. Treatment occurred in weekly groups for 6 mo and in biweekly groups for 6 mo. Assessments were conducted at baseline and at 6, 12, 18, 24, and 36 mo. Multilevel models were used to estimate weight-change trajectories for each participant and to examine the treatment group effect on long-term weight loss. Results:A multilevel analysis indicated that all 3 groups showed significant weight loss over 12 mo that was gradually regained to the 36-mo follow-up. Mean ± SD percentages of baseline weight loss at 12 mo for BT, BT+MR, and HFE were 9.41% ± 7.92%, 10.37% ± 7.77%, and 10.97% ± 7.79%, respectively. Comparable percentages at 36 mo were 4.21% ± 8.64%, 3.06% ± 6.93%, and 4.49% ± 7.83%. Those in the HFE condition lost more weight than those receiving BT through the 36-mo assessment (P < 0.01), as reflected in 2 treatment × time interactions. Further analyses showed that HFE produced the largest increases in cognitive restraint and that this increase largely mediated the HFE group's improved weight loss. Conclusion:The nutrition-focused intervention studied here produced modestly greater long-term weight loss than BT, an effect that was largely explainable by an unexpected boost in cognitive restraint in this condition. This study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01065974.

Dataset Information

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of meal replacements for weight loss.

Publications

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of meal replacements for weight loss.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets