ObjectiveUsing meta-regression this paper sets out the minimum change in body mass index-SD score (BMI-SDS) required to improve adiposity as percentage body fat for children and adolescents with obesity.DesignMeta-regression.SettingStudies were identified as part of a large-scale systematic review of the following electronic databases: AMED, Embase, MEDLINE via OVID, Web of Science and CENTRAL via Cochrane library.ParticipantsIndividuals aged 4–19 years with a diagnosis of obesity according to defined BMI thresholds.InterventionsStudies of lifestyle treatment interventions that included dietary, physical activity and/or behavioural components with the objective of reducing obesity were included. Interventions of <2 weeks duration and those that involved surgical and/or pharmacological components (eg, bariatric surgery, drug therapy) were excluded.Primary and secondary outcome measuresTo be included in the review, studies had to report baseline and post-intervention BMI-SDS or change measurements (primary outcome measures) plus one or more of the following markers of metabolic health (secondary outcome measures): adiposity measures other than BMI; blood pressure; glucose; inflammation; insulin sensitivity/resistance; lipid profile; liver function. This paper focuses on adiposity measures only. Further papers in this series will report on other outcome measures.ResultsThis paper explores the potential impact of BMI-SDS reduction in terms of change in percentage body fat. Thirty-nine studies reporting change in mean percentage body fat were analysed. Meta-regression demonstrated that reduction of at least 0.6 in mean BMI-SDS ensured a mean reduction of percentage body fat mass, in the sense that the associated 95% prediction interval for change in mean percentage body fat was wholly negative.ConclusionsInterventions demonstrating reductions of 0.6 BMI-SDS might be termed successful in reducing adiposity, a key purpose of weight management interventions.Trial registration numberCRD42016025317.
BackgroundSince the early 2000s, a number of publications in the medical literature have highlighted inadequacies in the design, conduct and reporting of pilot trials. This work led to two notable publications in 2016: a conceptual framework for defining feasibility studies and an extension to the CONSORT 2010 statement to include pilot trials. It was hoped that these publications would educate researchers, leading to better use of pilot trials and thus more rigorously planned and informed randomised controlled trials. The aim of the present work is to evaluate the impact of these publications in the field of physical activity by reviewing the literature pre- and post-2016. This first article presents the pre-2016 review of the reporting and the current editorial policy applied to pilot trials published in physical activity journals.MethodsFourteen physical activity journals were screened for pilot and feasibility studies published between 2012 and 2015. The CONSORT 2010 extension to pilot and feasibility studies was used as a framework to assess the reporting quality of the studies. Editors of the eligible physical activity journals were canvassed regarding their editorial policy for pilot and feasibility studies.ResultsThirty-one articles across five journals met the eligibility criteria. These articles fell into three distinct categories: trials that were carried out in preparation for a future definitive trial (23%), trials that evaluated the feasibility of a novel intervention but did not explicitly address a future definitive trial (23%) and trials that did not have any clear objectives to address feasibility (55%). Editors from all five journals stated that they generally do not accept pilot trials, and none gave reference to the CONSORT 2010 extension as a guideline for submissions.ConclusionThe result that over half of the studies did not have feasibility objectives is in line with previous research findings, demonstrating that these findings are not being disseminated effectively to researchers in the field of physical activity. The low standard of reporting across most reviewed articles and the neglect of the extended CONSORT 2010 statement by the journal editors highlight the need to actively disseminate these guidelines to ensure their impact.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s40814-018-0317-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Background: Using meta-regression, this article aims at establishing the minimum change in BMI-standard deviation score (SDS) needed to improve lipid profiles and blood pressure in children and adolescents with obesity, to aid future trials and guidelines. Methods: Studies with participants involved in lifestyle interventions, aged 4-19 years, with a diagnosis of obesity according to defined BMI thresholds, were considered for inclusion in a large systematic review. Interventions had to report pre-and postintervention (or mean change in) BMI-SDS, plus either systolic blood pressure (SBP), high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, and/or triglycerides (TGs). Random-effects meta-regression quantified the relationship between mean change in BMI-SDS and mean change in cardiovascular outcomes. Results: Seventy-one papers reported various cardiovascular measurements and mean change in BMI-SDS. Fifty-four, 59, 46, and 54 studies were analyzed, reporting a change in SBP, HDL, LDL, and TG, respectively. Reduction in mean BMI-SDS was significantly related to improvements in SBP, LDL, TG, and HDL (p < 0.05); BMI-SDS reductions of 1, 1.2, and 0.7 ensured a mean reduction of SBP, LDL, and TG, respectively, although an equivalent value for HDL improvement was indeterminate. Conclusion: Reductions in mean BMI-SDS of >1, >1.2, or >0.7 are likely to reduce SBP, LDL, and TG, respectively. Further studies are needed to clarify the optimal duration, intensity, and setting for interventions. Consistency is required regarding derived BMI values to facilitate future systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.