Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 400

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effectiveness of Primary Care–Relevant Treatments for Obesity in Adults: A Systematic Evidence Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force

LeBlanc, Erin S., O'Connor, Elizabeth, Whitlock, Evelyn P., Patnode, Carrie D., Kapka, Tanya·2011·Annals of Internal Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Overweight and obesity in adults are common and adversely affect health. PURPOSE: To summarize effectiveness and harms of primary care-relevant weight-loss interventions for overweight and obese adults. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and PsycINFO from January 2005 to September 2010; systematic reviews for identifying trials before 2005. STUDY SELECTION: Two investigators appraised 6498 abstracts and 648 articles. Clinical trials were included if control groups received minimal interventions. Articles were rated as good, fair, or poor by using design-specific criteria. DATA EXTRACTION: One investigator abstracted study characteristics and findings for good- and fair-quality studies; a second checked them. DATA SYNTHESIS: Behaviorally based treatment resulted in 3-kg (6.6-lb) greater weight loss in intervention than control participants after 12 to 18 months, with more treatment sessions associated with greater loss. Limited data suggest weight-loss maintenance for 1 year or more. Orlistat plus behavioral intervention resulted in 3-kg (6.6-lb) more weight loss than did placebo after 12 months. Metformin resulted in less weight loss. Data on effects of weight-loss treatment on long-term health outcomes (for example, death and cardiovascular disease) were insufficient. Weight-loss treatment reduced diabetes incidence in participants with prediabetes. Effects on intermediate outcomes (for example, lipids and blood pressure) were mixed and small. Data on serious medication harms were insufficient. Medications commonly caused withdrawals due to gastrointestinal symptoms. LIMITATIONS: Few studies reported health outcomes. Behaviorally based treatments were heterogeneous and specific elements were not well-described. Many studies could not be pooled because of insufficient reporting of variance data. Medication trials had high attrition, lacked postdiscontinuation data, and were inadequately powered for rare adverse effects. CONCLUSION: Behaviorally based treatments are safe and effective for weight loss and maintenance. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.7326/0003-4819-155-7-201110040-00006

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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.

Citations

Cites

Show all 28 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
LeBlanc, E. S., O'Connor, E., Whitlock, E. P., Patnode, C. D., & Kapka, T.
Venue
Annals of Internal Medicine
Published
2011-10-04
Volume
155
Issue
7
Pages
434-447
ISSN
  • 0003-4819 (ISSN-L)
  • 1539-3704
OpenAlex
W2101802080
Cited by
400
References
28
FWCI
24.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

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.