The DOI matches its Crossref record; 92 of the 93 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Technology-Assisted Weight Loss Interventions in Primary Care: A Systematic Review
Open accessAbstract
Background The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends screening for and treating obesity. However, there are many barriers to successfully treating obesity in primary care (PC). Technology-assisted weight loss interventions offer novel ways of improving treatment, but trials are overwhelmingly conducted outside of PC and may not translate well into this setting. We conducted a systematic review of technology-assisted weight loss interventions specifically tested in PC settings.Methods We searched the literature from January 2000 to March 2014.Inclusion criteria (1) Randomized controlled trial; (2) trials that utilized the Internet, personal computer, and/or mobile device; and (3) occurred in an ambulatory PC setting. We applied the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) and Delphi criteria to assess bias and the Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS) criteria to assess pragmatism (whether trials occurred in the real world versus under ideal circumstances). Given heterogeneity, results were not pooled quantitatively.Results Sixteen trials met inclusion criteria. Twelve (75 %) interventions achieved weight loss (range: 0.08 kg - 5.4 kg) compared to controls, while 5-45 % of patients lost at least 5 % of baseline weight. Trial duration and attrition ranged from 3-36 months and 6-80 %, respectively. Ten (63 %) studies reported results after at least 1 year of follow-up. Interventions used various forms of personnel, technology modalities, and behavior change elements; trials most frequently utilized medical doctors (MDs) (44 %), web-based applications (63 %), and self-monitoring (81 %), respectively. Interventions that included clinician-guiding software or feedback from personnel appeared to promote more weight loss than fully automated interventions. Only two (13 %) studies used publically available technologies. Many studies had fair pragmatism scores (mean: 2.8/4), despite occurring in primary care.Discussion Compared to usual care, technology-assisted interventions in the PC setting help patients achieve weight loss, offering evidence-based options to PC providers. However, best practices remain undetermined. Despite occurring in PC, studies often fall short in utilizing pragmatic methodology and rarely provide publically available technology. Longitudinal, pragmatic, interdisciplinary, and open-source interventions are needed.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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 the citing paper
“Gender and personality were also found to influence the relationship between online social networking and depression, 27,34,35,45,47 highlighting the role of individual differences alongside usage variables cited above.”
From The Relationship Between Online Social Networking and Depression: A Systematic Review of Quantitative Studies (2016) · cites this paper as [35]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group (2009) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 · Cited by 64,042
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.
(2009) · PubMed Central · Cited by 44,859
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series
(2008) · doi:10.1002/9780470712184 · Cited by 25,048
Reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes with lifestyle intervention or metformin
(2002) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa012512 · Cited by 19,011
Prevalence of Childhood and Adult Obesity in the United States, 2011-2012
Ogden, C. L., Carroll, M. D., Kit, B. K., & Flegal, K. M. (2014) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2014.732 · Cited by 8,072
The Disease Burden Associated With Overweight and Obesity
Must, A. (1999) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.282.16.1523 · Cited by 4,827
Health and economic burden of the projected obesity trends in the USA and the UK
Wang, Y. C., McPherson, K., Marsh, T., Gortmaker, S. L., & Brown, M. (2011) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(11)60814-3 · Cited by 2,775
Verhagen, A. P., de Vet, H. C. W., de Bie, R. A., Kessels, A. G. H., Boers, M., Bouter, L. M., & Knipschild, P. G. (1998) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(98)00131-0 · Cited by 2,470
Using Pedometers to Increase Physical Activity and Improve Health: A Systematic Review
Bravata, D. M., Smith-Spangler, C., Sundaram, V., Gienger, A. L., Lin, N., Lewis, R., Stave, C. D., Olkin, I., & Sirard, J. R. (2007) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.298.19.2296 · Cited by 2,064
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Kushner RF. Roadmaps for clinical practice: case studies in disease prevention and health promotion—assessment and management of adult obesity: a primer for physicians. Chicago: American Medical Association; 2003.
- Lefebvre C, Manheimer E, Glanville J. Chapter 6: searching for studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.0.2 [updated September 2009]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2009.
- Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Review Group. Risk of bias. 2009. Available at: http://epoc.cochrane.org/sites/epoc.cochrane.org/files/uploads/Suggested%20risk%20of%20bias%20criteria%20for%20EPOC%20reviews.pdf . Accessed 7/17/14.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–105 of 105
Vandyousefi, S., Oettingen, G., Wittleder, S., Moin, T., Sweat, V., Aguilar, A. D., Ruan, A., Angelotti, G., Wong, L., Orstad, S. L., et al. (2024) · Contemporary Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/j.cct.2024.107523
Self-citationKristoffersen, S. F., Christensen, J. R., Jeremiassen, L. M. R., Kylkjær, L. B., Christensen, N. R., Jørgensen, S. W., Kristensen, J. K., Wehberg, S., Raymond, I. E., Jarbøl, D. E., et al. (2025) · Nutrients · doi:10.3390/nu17152494 · Cited by 2
George, E. S., Sood, S., Sualeheen, A., Cartledge, S. H., Roberts, S. K., Daly, R. M., Tan, S., Scott, D., Wheeler, K., George, J., et al. (2026) · Proceedings of The Nutrition Society · doi:10.1017/s0029665126103048
Alghamdi, A., Bardus, M., Das, M., & Elmusharaf, K. (2026) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2025-110795
Balbino, K. P., Cândido, F. G., Coelho, O. G. L., & Hermsdorff, H. H. M. (2026) · Nutrition Reviews · doi:10.1093/nutrit/nuag145
Metadata
- Authors
- Levine, D. M., Savarimuthu, S., Squires, A., Nicholson, J., & Jay, M.
- Affiliations
- New York University (US)
- Hofstra University (US)
- VA NY Harbor Healthcare System (US)
- Corresponding author
- Levine, David M.
- Venue
- Journal of General Internal Medicine
- Published
- 2014-08-19
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 107-117
- ISSN
- 0884-8734 (ISSN-L)
- 1525-1497
- PMC
- PMC4284284
- OpenAlex
- W2018124350
- Cited by
- 105
- References
- 93
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 3
- FWCI
- 1.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Journal of General Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (IK2 HX000762)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Obesity and Health Practices
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Obesity, Physical Activity, Diet
- Keywords
- obesity treatment, primary care, online intervention, mobile health, self-monitoring, behavior change, pragmatic trials, weight loss outcomes
- MeSH terms
- Delivery of Health Care, Humans, Obesity, Primary Health Care, Weight Loss, Internet, Biomedical Technology, Mobile Applications
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
