Cited by 156Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsObesity, Physical Activity, DietPhysical Activity and Health

The SHED-IT randomized controlled trial: evaluation of an Internet-based weight-loss program for men

Open access
Morgan, Philip J., Lubans, David R., Collins, Clare E., Warren, Janet M., Callister, Robin·2009·Obesity

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of an Internet-based weight-loss program for men in an assessor blinded randomized controlled trial. In total, 65 overweight/obese male staff and students at the University of Newcastle (mean (s.d.) age = 35.9 (11.1) years; BMI = 30.6 (2.8)) were randomly assigned to either (i) Internet group (n = 34) or (ii) control group (information only) (n = 31). Both groups received one face-to-face information session and a program booklet. Internet group participants used the study website to self-monitor diet and activity with feedback provided based on participants' online entries on seven occasions over 3 months. Participants were assessed at baseline, 3-, and 6-month follow-up for weight, waist circumference, BMI, blood pressure, resting heart rate, objectively measured physical activity, and self-reported total daily kilojoules. Intention-to-treat analysis revealed significant weight loss of 5.3 kg (95% confidence interval (CI): -7.3, -3.3) at 6 months for the Internet group and 3.5 kg (95% CI: -5.5, -1.4) for the control group. A significant time effect was found for all outcomes but no between-group differences. Per-protocol analysis revealed a significant group-by-time interaction (P < 0.001), with compliers losing more weight at 6 months (-9.1 kg; 95% CI -11.8, -6.5) than noncompliers (-2.7 kg; 95% CI -5.3, -0.01) and the control group (-4.2 kg; 95% CI -6.2, -2.2). Simple weight-loss interventions can be effective in achieving statistically and clinically significant weight loss in men. The Internet is a feasible and effective medium for weight loss in men but strategies need to be explored to improve engagement in online programs.

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/oby.2009.85

Cites

21 of 21 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?

  • The Morgan 2009 trial reported that participants were blind to group allocation at baseline assessment and that assessors were blinded to treatment allocation at all points.

    “The Morgan 2009 trial reported that participants were blind to group allocation at baseline assessment and that assessors were blinded to treatment allocation at all points.”
  • Morgan 2009 used linear mixed models to assess the primary analysis of effects of losses to follow-up.

    “Morgan 2009 used linear mixed models to assess the primary analysis of effects of losses to follow-up.”
  • After 10 to 14 weeks of treatment, the five individual trials with weight loss measurements at three months showed that participants in the computer-based intervention groups lost more weight than participants in the minimal intervention control groups (MD -2.5 kg, 95% CI -3.4 to -1.6, P < 0.00001; 430 participants; five trials).

    “After 10 to 14 weeks of treatment, the five individual trials with weight loss measurements at three months (Bennett 2010; Morgan 2009; Morgan 2011; Schroder 2010; Threlfall 1984) showed that participants in the computer-based intervention groups lost more weight than participants in the minimal intervention control groups (mean difference (MD) −2.5 kg (95% confidence interval (CI) −3.4 to −1.6),”
  • Several trials (Bennett 2010; Hunter 2008; Morgan 2009; Morgan 2011; Wylie-Rosett 2001) tested for and demonstrated statistically significant positive associations between amount of computer use and amount of weight loss in the intervention group.

    “Several trials (Bennett 2010; Hunter 2008; Morgan 2009; Morgan 2011; Wylie-Rosett 2001) tested for and demonstrated statistically significant positive associations between amount of computer use, measured in a variety of ways, and amount of weight loss in the intervention group.”
  • After six months of treatment, participants in the computer-based intervention lost more weight than participants in the control intervention (MD -1.5 kg, 95% CI -2.1 to -0.9, P < 0.00001; 511 participants; two trials).

    “After six months of treatment, participants in the computer-based intervention lost more weight than participants in the control intervention (MD −1.5 kg (95% CI −2.1 to −0.9); P < 0.00001; 511 participants; two trials; Analysis 1.2) (Figure 4).”

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

2 of the 23 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Wadden T. Characteristics of successful weight loss maintainers. In: Allison D, Pi-Sunyer F (eds). Obesity Treatment: Establishing Goals, Improving Outcomes and Reviewing the Research Agenda. Plenum Press: New York, 1995, pp 103-111.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Morgan, P. J., Lubans, D. R., Collins, C. E., Warren, J. M., & Callister, R.
Affiliations
  • University of Newcastle Australia (AU)
  • Danone (United Kingdom) (GB)
Corresponding author
Callister, Robin
Venue
Obesity
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-11
Volume
17
Issue
11
Pages
2025-2032
ISSN
  • 1930-7381 (ISSN-L)
  • 1930-739X
OpenAlex
W2052004812
Cited by
156
References
23
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 11
FWCI
25.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Obesity (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion)
  • NOVA (University of Newcastle Australia) (submittedVersion)
Funders
University of Newcastle Australia
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 › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
Keywords
men, overweight, self-monitoring, weight loss, online health interventions, program adherence, waist circumference, blood pressure, resting heart rate, physical activity
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Blood Pressure, Energy Intake, Diet, Reducing, Feasibility Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Motor Activity, Obesity, Patient Compliance, Time Factors, Diet Records, Body Mass Index, Treatment Outcome, Internet, Overweight, Waist Circumference, Young Adult

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