Cited by 39Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsDiabetes Management and Education

Two-year weight-loss maintenance in primary care-based Diabetes Prevention Program lifestyle interventions

Open access
Xiao, L, Yank, V, Wilson, S R, Lavori, P W, Ma, J·2013·Nutrition & Diabetes

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether the effects on weight loss and cardiometabolic risk factor reduction of two technology-mediated lifestyle interventions for 15 months in a primary care-based translation trial sustained at 24 months (that is, 9 months after the end of intervention). DESIGN: This study analyzed data from an extended follow-up of participants in the original 'E-LITE' (Evaluation of Lifestyle Interventions to Treat Elevated Cardiometabolic Risk in Primary Care)-randomized controlled trial, which demonstrated the effectiveness of two adapted Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) lifestyle interventions compared with usual primary care. SUBJECTS: E-LITE randomized 241 overweight or obese participants with pre-diabetes and/or metabolic syndrome to receive usual care alone (n=81) or usual care plus a coach-led (n=79) or self-directed intervention (n=81). The interventions provided coach-led group behavioral weight-loss treatment or a take-home, self-directed DVD using the same 12-week curriculum, followed by 12 additional months of technology-mediated coach contact and self-monitoring support. Participants received no further intervention after month 15. A blinded assessor conducted 24-month visits by following the measurement protocols of the original trial. Measurements include weight and cardiometabolic risk factors (waist circumference, fasting plasma glucose, resting blood pressure, triglycerides, high- and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, total cholesterol and triglyceride to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio). RESULTS: At month 24, mean±s.e. changes in body mass index (trial primary outcome) and weight (kg) from baseline were -1.9±0.3 (P=0.001) and -5.4±0.9 (P<0.001) in the coach-led intervention, and -1.6±0.3 (P=0.03) and -4.5±0.9 (P=0.001) in the self-directed intervention, compared with -0.9±0.3 and 2.4±0.9 in the usual care group. In addition, both interventions led to a greater percentage of participants maintaining 7% weight loss and sustained improvements in waist circumference and fasting plasma glucose levels than usual care. CONCLUSION: This study shows sustained benefits of the two primary care-based, technology-mediated DPP lifestyle interventions. The findings warrant replication in long-term studies involving diverse populations.

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 · 10.1038/nutd.2013.17

Cites

8 of 8 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?

  • Fourteen articles were not included in the meta-analysis because they provided insufficient data for analyses or because they reported outcomes from a trial already included in the analysis but with data from other follow-up times.

    “Fourteen articles were not included in the meta-analysis because they provided insufficient data for analyses (i.e., did not report SEs for outcomes and authors did not respond to requests for these data) (23–27) or because these articles reported outcomes from a trial already included in the analysis but with data from other follow-up times (28–36).”

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
Xiao, L., Yank, V, Wilson, S. R., Lavori, P. W., & Ma, J.
Affiliations
  • Palo Alto Medical Foundation (US)
  • Stanford Medicine (US)
Corresponding author
Ma, J
Venue
Nutrition & Diabetes
Published
2013-06-24
Volume
3
Issue
6
Pages
e76-e76
ISSN
2044-4052 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1997966523
Cited by
39
References
8
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 2
FWCI
4.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nutrition and Diabetes (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • American Heart Association (0830362N, R34DK080878)
  • University of Pittsburgh
  • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R21HS019550)
  • Palo Alto Medical Foundation
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (0830362N, R34DK080878)
  • National Center for Research Resources (UL1RR025744)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
Keywords
weight loss maintenance, prediabetes, metabolic syndrome, overweight and obesity, primary care, cardiometabolic risk factors, waist circumference, fasting blood glucose, body mass index

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