Cited by 212Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsObesity, Physical Activity, DietObesity and Health Practices

The efficacy of a daily self‐weighing weight loss intervention using smart scales and e‐mail

Open access
Steinberg, Dori M., Tate, Deborah F., Bennett, Gary G., Ennett, Susan, Samuel‐Hodge, Carmen, Ward, Dianne S.·2013·Obesity

Abstract

Objective: To examine the impact of a weight loss intervention that focused on daily self‐weighing for self‐monitoring as compared to a delayed control group among 91 overweight adults. Design and Methods: The 6‐month intervention included a cellular‐connected “smart” scale for daily weighing, web‐based weight loss graph, and weekly e‐mails with tailored feedback and lessons. An objective measure of self‐weighing frequency was obtained. Weight was measured in clinic at 3 and 6 months. Caloric intake and expenditure, and perceptions of daily self‐weighing were also measured. Results: Using intent‐to‐treat analyses, the intervention group lost significantly more weight compared to the control group [mean (95% CI); 3 months: −4.41% (−5.5, −3.3) vs. −0.37% (−1.5, 0.76); 6 months: −6.55% (−7.7, −5.4) vs. −0.35% (−1.5, 0.79); group × time interaction: P < 0.001] and a greater percentage achieved 5% (42.6% vs. 6.8%; P < 0.0001) and 10% (27.7% vs. 0%; P < 0.0001) weight loss. On average, the intervention group self‐weighed more days/week (6.1 ± 1.1 vs. 1.1 ± 1.5; P < 0.0001) and consumed fewer calories/day compared to the control group [mean (95% CI); 6 months: 1,509 (1,291, 1,728) vs. 1,856 (1,637, 2,074); group × time interaction: P = 0.006]. Among intervention participants, daily self‐weighing was perceived positively. Conclusions: These results indicate that an intervention focusing on daily self‐weighing can produce clinically significant weight loss.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/oby.20396

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In this CCI, self-monitoring combined with continuous remote-monitoring and feedback from the care team, including behavioral support and nutrition advice via the app, may have improved accountability and engagement.

    “In this CCI, self-monitoring combined with continuous remote-monitoring and feedback from the care team, including behavioral support and nutrition advice via the app, may have improved accountability and engagement (58).”

    From Long-Term Effects of a Novel Continuous Remote Care Intervention Including Nutritional Ketosis for the Management of Type 2 Diabetes: A 2-Year Non-randomized Clinical Trial (2019) · cites this paper as [58]

    The Introduction states that self-monitoring provides personal accountability. The Methods (Study Design and Intervention Description) describe remotely collected weights, weekly tailored feedback, and behavioral and dietary guidance, but these were delivered by email, not an app. The paper does not establish that the combination improved engagement; the sentence presents that as a possibility for the citing authors’ CCI. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [20]Boutelle K Weighing the evidence: benefits of regular weight monitoring for weight control Journal of nutrition education and behavior 2006 38 3 131 16731444

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Steinberg, D. M., Tate, D. F., Bennett, G. G., Ennett, S., Samuel‐Hodge, C., & Ward, D. S.
Affiliations
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • Duke University (US)
Corresponding author
Steinberg, Dori M.
Venue
Obesity
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-07-02
Volume
21
Issue
9
Pages
1789-1797
ISSN
  • 1930-7381 (ISSN-L)
  • 1930-739X
OpenAlex
W1500094019
Cited by
212
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 5
FWCI
35.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Obesity (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) (submittedVersion)
  • UNC Libraries
Funders
  • Gillings School of Public Health
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
  • National Cancer Institute (R25CA057726)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Obesity, Physical Activity, Diet
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Obesity and Health Practices
Keywords
weight loss interventions, smart scales, self-monitoring, personalized feedback, overweight adults, energy intake, weight loss maintenance
MeSH terms
Adult, Body Weight, Energy Intake, Energy Metabolism, Female, Health Promotion, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Obesity, Perception, Weight Loss, Health Behavior, Treatment Outcome, Patient Satisfaction, Internet, Electronic Mail, Intention to Treat Analysis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review