2018
DOI: 10.1111/eci.12982
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Environmental risk factors and nonpharmacological and nonsurgical interventions for obesity: An umbrella review of meta‐analyses of cohort studies and randomized controlled trials

Abstract: Depression, obesity in earlier age groups, short sleep duration, childhood abuse and low maternal education have the strongest support among proposed risk factors for obesity. Furthermore, there is no high-quality evidence to recommend treating obesity with a specific nonpharmacological and nonsurgical intervention among many available, and whatever benefits in terms of magnitude of weight loss appear small.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
39
0
3

Year Published

2019
2019
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

2
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 62 publications
(50 citation statements)
references
References 136 publications
(254 reference statements)
3
39
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…51,52 Grading the evidence The credibility of the meta-analyses was assessed according to stringent criteria based on previously published umbrella reviews. 38,39,44,50,53 In brief, associations that presented nominally significant random-effects summary effect sizes (i.e., p o 0.05) were ranked as convincing, highly suggestive, suggestive, or weak evidence based on the number of events, the strength of the association, and the presence of several biases (criteria presented in Box 1). The quality of included meta-analyses was assessed with the AMSTAR-2 tool.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…51,52 Grading the evidence The credibility of the meta-analyses was assessed according to stringent criteria based on previously published umbrella reviews. 38,39,44,50,53 In brief, associations that presented nominally significant random-effects summary effect sizes (i.e., p o 0.05) were ranked as convincing, highly suggestive, suggestive, or weak evidence based on the number of events, the strength of the association, and the presence of several biases (criteria presented in Box 1). The quality of included meta-analyses was assessed with the AMSTAR-2 tool.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In AMSTAR, the methodological quality was usually categorized as high (8‐11 items achieved), moderate (4‐7 items achieved), and low (0‐3 items achieved) 17 . In GRADE system, according to the assessment of risk of bias, inconsistence, indirectness, imprecision, and publication bias, the evidence quality was divided into four categories (high, moderate, low, and very low) 18 …”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The main external factor is the easy availability of cheap, calorie‐dense foods (the so‐called “obesogenic environment”; Corsica & Hood, ). However, recent evidence indicates that two internal factors, depression and short sleep duration, also increase the risk of obesity (Solmi et al, ). Food addiction (FA) was south to be another internal risk factor for obesity (Volkow & Wise, ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%