Cited by 55Diabetes Management and EducationDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsDiabetes Treatment and Management

Improving diabetes outcomes through lifestyle change—a randomized controlled trial

Open access
Delahanty, Linda M., Dalton, Kristen M., Porneala, Bianca, Chang, Yuchiao, Goldman, Valerie M., Levy, Douglas, Nathan, David M., Wexler, Deborah J.·2015·Obesity

Abstract

Objective: To compare a diabetes group lifestyle intervention (GLI) with dietitian referral for medical nutrition therapy (RD) for weight loss in the usual care setting. Methods: Randomized clinical trial was conducted with 57 primary care patients with type 2 diabetes and body mass index (BMI) >25 kg/m 2 who received either a dietitian‐led 19‐week GLI adapted from the Look AHEAD study or RD. Outcome measures include 6‐month and 1‐year weight loss, changes in medications, glycemic control, cardiac risk factors, and cost analysis. Results: Patients were mean age 61, 59% male, and 32% non‐white, and they weighed 97 kg with mean HbA1c 8.2%. At 6 months, 46% of GLI vs. 21% of RD lost ≥5% body weight ( P = 0.04), with mean weight loss 6.6 (SD 7.0) kg with GLI and 2.1 (3.5) kg in RD ( P = 0.004). HbA1c improved by 0.70 (1.13) vs. 0.39 (1.51) in GLI vs. RD ( P = 0.4), respectively, and 82% vs. 38% stopped or reduced diabetes medications ( P < 0.001). Weight loss remained significantly greater in GLI compared to RD at 1 year. GLI program cost was $578 per participant. Conclusions: An affordable GLI achieved significantly more weight loss and medication reduction than RD in primary care patients with type 2 diabetes.

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.21172

Cites

18 of 18 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

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Delahanty, L. M., Dalton, K. M., Porneala, B., Chang, Y., Goldman, V. M., Levy, D., Nathan, D. M., & Wexler, D. J.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Massachusetts General Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Delahanty, Linda M.
Venue
Obesity
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-08-11
Volume
23
Issue
9
Pages
1792-1799
ISSN
  • 1930-7381 (ISSN-L)
  • 1930-739X
OpenAlex
W1556374185
Cited by
55
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1
FWCI
4.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Obesity (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Massachusetts General Hospital
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
Keywords
type 2 diabetes, medical nutrition therapy, dietitian referral, weight loss, glycemic control, HbA1c, diabetes medication reduction, cardiovascular risk factors, primary care, lookahead, cost analysis
MeSH terms
Aged, Attitude to Health, Blood Glucose, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Humans, Life Style, Male, Middle Aged, Risk Factors, Weight Loss, Health Behavior, Body Mass Index, Treatment Outcome

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