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

Solmi, Marco, Köhler, Cristiano A., Stubbs, Brendon, Koyanagi, Ai, Bortolato, Beatrice, Monaco, Francesco, Vancampfort, Davy, Machado, Myrela O., Maes, Michael, Tzoulaki, Ioanna, Firth, Joseph, Ioannidis, John P. A. and Carvalho, André F. (2018) Environmental risk factors and nonpharmacological and nonsurgical interventions for obesity: An umbrella review of meta-analyses of cohort studies and randomized controlled trials. European Journal of Clinical Investigation, 48 (12). e12982. ISSN 1365-2362

Full text not available from this repository.
Official URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/eci.12982


Background: Multiple environmental factors have been implicated in obesity, and multiple interventions, besides drugs and surgery, have been assessed in obese patients. Results are scattered across many studies and meta‐analyses, and they often mix obese and overweight individuals. Materials and methods: PubMed and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched through 21 January 2017 for meta‐analyses of cohort studies assessing environmental risk factors for obesity, and randomized controlled trials investigating nonpharmacological and nonsurgical therapeutic interventions for obesity. We excluded data on overweight participants. Evidence from observational studies was graded according to criteria that included the statistical significance of the random‐effects summary estimate and of the largest study in a meta‐analysis, the number of obesity cases, heterogeneity between studies, 95% prediction intervals, small‐study effects and excess significance. The evidence of intervention studies for obesity was assessed with the GRADE framework. Results: Fifty‐four articles met eligibility criteria, including 26 meta‐analyses of environmental risk factors (166 studies) and 46 meta‐analyses of nondrug, nonsurgical interventions (206 trials). In adults, the only risk factor with convincing evidence was depression, and childhood obesity, adolescent obesity, childhood abuse and short sleep duration had highly suggestive evidence. Infancy weight gain during the first year of life, depression and low maternal education had convincing evidence for association with paediatric obesity. All interventions had low or very‐low‐quality evidence with one exception of moderate‐quality evidence for one comparison (no differences in efficacy between brief lifestyle primary care interventions and other interventions for paediatric obesity). Summary effect sizes were mostly small across compared interventions (maximum 5.1 kg in adults and 1.78 kg in children) and even these estimates may be inflated. Conclusions: 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.

Item Type: Journal Article
Keywords: bias, cohort studies, evidence, meta‐analyses, obesity, risk factors, treatment, umbrella review
Faculty: ARCHIVED Faculty of Health, Social Care & Education (until September 2018)
Depositing User: Lisa Blanshard
Date Deposited: 20 Nov 2018 12:49
Last Modified: 03 Feb 2022 10:47
URI: https://arro.anglia.ac.uk/id/eprint/703860

Actions (login required)

Edit Item Edit Item