The DOI matches its Crossref record; 145 of the 145 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The effectiveness of app‐based mobile interventions on nutrition behaviours and nutrition‐related health outcomes: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Open accessAbstract
Summary: A systematic review and meta‐analysis were conducted to assess the effectiveness of app‐based mobile interventions for improving nutrition behaviours and nutrition‐related health outcomes, including obesity indices (eg, body mass index [BMI]) and clinical parameters (eg, blood lipids). Seven databases were searched for studies published between 2006 and 2017. Forty‐one of 10 132 identified records were included, comprising 6348 participants and 373 outcomes with sample sizes ranging from 10 to 833, including 27 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A beneficial effect of app‐based mobile interventions was identified for improving nutrition behaviours (g = 0.19; CI, 0.06‐0.32, P = .004) and nutrition‐related health outcomes (g = 0.23; CI, 0.11‐0.36, P < .001), including positive effects on obesity indices (g = 0.30; CI, 0.15‐0.45, P < .001), blood pressure (g = 0.21; CI, 0.01‐0.42, P = .043), and blood lipids (g = 0.15; CI, 0.03‐0.28, P = .018). Most interventions were composed of four behaviour change technique (BCT) clusters, namely, “goals/planning,” “feedback/monitoring,” “shaping knowledge,” and “social support.” Moderating effects including study design, type of app (commercial/research app), sample characteristics (clinical/non‐clinical sample), and intervention characteristics were not statistically significant. The inclusion of additional treatment components besides the app or the number or type of BCTs implemented did not moderate the observed effectiveness, which underscores the potential of app‐based mobile interventions for implementing effective and feasible interventions operating at scale for fighting the obesity epidemic in a broad spectrum of the population.
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.
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
Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
Muller, K. (1989) · Technometrics · doi:10.1080/00401706.1989.10488618 · Cited by 99,167
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
Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
(1990) · Computers, Environment and Urban Systems · doi:10.1016/0198-9715(90)90050-4 · Cited by 65,269
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
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 · Cited by 56,722
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.
(2009) · PubMed Central · Cited by 44,859
The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials
Higgins, J. P. T., Altman, D. G., Gotzsche, P. C., Juni, P., Moher, D., Oxman, A. D., Savovic, J., Schulz, K. F., Weeks, L., Sterne, J. A. C., et al. (2011) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.d5928 · Cited by 33,817
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions
(2019) · doi:10.1002/9781119536604 · Cited by 14,828
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009) · doi:10.1002/9780470743386 · Cited by 14,225
CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials
the CONSORT Group, Schulz, K. F., Altman, D. G., & Moher, D. (2010) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/1741-7015-8-18 · Cited by 13,371
Cited by
Deniz-Garcia, A., Fabelo, H., Rodriguez-Almeida, A. J., Zamora-Zamorano, G., Castro-Fernandez, M., Alberiche Ruano, M. D. P., Solvoll, T., Granja, C., Schopf, T. R., Callico, G. M., et al. (2023) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/44030 · Cited by 268
(2020) · doi:10.1186/s12889-020-09700-7 · Cited by 77
Liu, Y.-C., Chen, C.-H., Lin, Y.-S., Chen, H.-Y., Irianti, D., Jen, T.-N., Yeh, J.-Y., & Chiu, S. Y.-H. (2020) · JMIR mHealth and uHealth · doi:10.2196/20317 · Cited by 41
“Digital dietary intake tracking has substantial potential for improving related health or nutrition outcomes [13].”
Kracht, C. L., Hutchesson, M., Ahmed, M., Müller, A. M., Ashton, L. M., Brown, H. M., DeSmet, A., Maher, C. A., Mauch, C. E., Vandelanotte, C., et al. (2021) · Obesity Reviews · doi:10.1111/obr.13331 · Cited by 37
Lieffers, J. R. L., Quintanilha, M., Trottier, C. F., Johnson, S. T., Mota, J. F., & Prado, C. M. (2021) · Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics · doi:10.1016/j.jand.2021.04.019 · Cited by 13
Metadata
- Authors
- Villinger, K., Wahl, D. R., Boeing, H., Schupp, H. T., & Renner, B.
- Venue
- Obesity Reviews
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2019-07-28
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1465-1484
- ISSN
- 1467-7881 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-789X
- OpenAlex
- W2900090645
- Cited by
- 292
- References
- 145
- FWCI
- 7.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The effectiveness of app‐based mobile interventions on nutrition behaviours and nutrition‐related health outcomes: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/obr.12903
- The paper
- Villinger, K., Wahl, D. R., Boeing, H., Schupp, H. T., & Renner, B. (2019). The effectiveness of app‐based mobile interventions on nutrition behaviours and nutrition‐related health outcomes: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Obesity Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.12903
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.