The impact of weight loss interventions on disordered eating symptoms in people with overweight and obesity: a systematic review & meta-analysis.

IF 9.6 1区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL EClinicalMedicine Pub Date : 2025-01-31 eCollection Date: 2025-02-01 DOI:10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.103049
Elena Tsompanaki, Dimitrios A Koutoukidis, Gina Wren, Heather Tong, Annika Theodoulou, Danni Wang, Rebecca J Park, Susan A Jebb, Paul Aveyard
{"title":"The impact of weight loss interventions on disordered eating symptoms in people with overweight and obesity: a systematic review & meta-analysis.","authors":"Elena Tsompanaki, Dimitrios A Koutoukidis, Gina Wren, Heather Tong, Annika Theodoulou, Danni Wang, Rebecca J Park, Susan A Jebb, Paul Aveyard","doi":"10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.103049","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>It is unclear whether weight loss interventions worsen disordered eating in people living with overweight/obesity. We aimed to systematically evaluate the association between weight loss interventions and disordered eating.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Six databases were searched from inception until September 2024. Trials of weight loss interventions in people with overweight/obesity were included if they reported a validated score for disordered eating on either the Eating Disorder Examination Interview or the Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire pre- and post-intervention. Interventions included behavioural weight loss programmes (BWL) and pharmacotherapy licenced for weight loss, with or without concurrent psychological support, provided for at least 4 weeks. Pooled standardised mean differences (SMD) in scores of disordered eating were calculated using random effects meta-analyses. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for randomised and single-arm trials, respectively (PROSPERO ID: CRD42023404792).</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Thirty-eight studies with 66 eligible arms (61 interventions: 29 BWL, 11 BWL + pharmacotherapy, 20 BWL + psychological intervention, 1 pharmacotherapy + psychological intervention) and 3364 participants in total were included. The mean weight change was -4.7 kg (95% CI: -5.7, -3.7). Compared with baseline, disordered eating scores improved by -1.47 SMD units (95% CI: -1.67, -1.27, p < 0.001, I<sup>2</sup> = 94%) at intervention completion (median of 4 months). Seven randomised trials that directly compared a weight loss intervention to no/minimal intervention reported an improvement of -0.49 SMD units (95% CI, -0.93, -0.04, p = 0.0035, I<sup>2</sup> = 73%). Sub-group analyses showed: (a) disordered eating scores improved more in people with an eating disorder at baseline compared with people without high scores, (b) no clear evidence that the association depended upon intervention type, and (c) disordered eating scores improved more in trials rated at low overall RoB.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>Despite heterogeneity in effect size, weight loss interventions consistently improved disordered eating scores. These findings provide reassurance that weight loss interventions might not worsen disordered eating and may improve it.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>Novo Nordisk UK Research Foundation Doctoral Fellowship in Clinical Diabetes.</p>","PeriodicalId":11393,"journal":{"name":"EClinicalMedicine","volume":"80 ","pages":"103049"},"PeriodicalIF":9.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11841075/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EClinicalMedicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.103049","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: It is unclear whether weight loss interventions worsen disordered eating in people living with overweight/obesity. We aimed to systematically evaluate the association between weight loss interventions and disordered eating.

Methods: Six databases were searched from inception until September 2024. Trials of weight loss interventions in people with overweight/obesity were included if they reported a validated score for disordered eating on either the Eating Disorder Examination Interview or the Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire pre- and post-intervention. Interventions included behavioural weight loss programmes (BWL) and pharmacotherapy licenced for weight loss, with or without concurrent psychological support, provided for at least 4 weeks. Pooled standardised mean differences (SMD) in scores of disordered eating were calculated using random effects meta-analyses. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for randomised and single-arm trials, respectively (PROSPERO ID: CRD42023404792).

Findings: Thirty-eight studies with 66 eligible arms (61 interventions: 29 BWL, 11 BWL + pharmacotherapy, 20 BWL + psychological intervention, 1 pharmacotherapy + psychological intervention) and 3364 participants in total were included. The mean weight change was -4.7 kg (95% CI: -5.7, -3.7). Compared with baseline, disordered eating scores improved by -1.47 SMD units (95% CI: -1.67, -1.27, p < 0.001, I2 = 94%) at intervention completion (median of 4 months). Seven randomised trials that directly compared a weight loss intervention to no/minimal intervention reported an improvement of -0.49 SMD units (95% CI, -0.93, -0.04, p = 0.0035, I2 = 73%). Sub-group analyses showed: (a) disordered eating scores improved more in people with an eating disorder at baseline compared with people without high scores, (b) no clear evidence that the association depended upon intervention type, and (c) disordered eating scores improved more in trials rated at low overall RoB.

Interpretation: Despite heterogeneity in effect size, weight loss interventions consistently improved disordered eating scores. These findings provide reassurance that weight loss interventions might not worsen disordered eating and may improve it.

Funding: Novo Nordisk UK Research Foundation Doctoral Fellowship in Clinical Diabetes.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
EClinicalMedicine
EClinicalMedicine Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
18.90
自引率
1.30%
发文量
506
审稿时长
22 days
期刊介绍: eClinicalMedicine is a gold open-access clinical journal designed to support frontline health professionals in addressing the complex and rapid health transitions affecting societies globally. The journal aims to assist practitioners in overcoming healthcare challenges across diverse communities, spanning diagnosis, treatment, prevention, and health promotion. Integrating disciplines from various specialties and life stages, it seeks to enhance health systems as fundamental institutions within societies. With a forward-thinking approach, eClinicalMedicine aims to redefine the future of healthcare.
期刊最新文献
Corrigendum for "Development of a machine learning-based model to predict hepatic inflammation in chronic hepatitis B patients with concurrent hepatic steatosis: a cohort study". Implementing a nurse-enabled, integrated, shared-care model involving specialists and general practitioners in early breast cancer post-treatment follow-up (EMINENT): a single-centre, open-label, phase 2, parallel-group, pilot, randomised, controlled trial. Status of cerebrovascular autoregulation relates to outcome in severe paediatric head injury: STARSHIP, a prospective multicentre validation study. Occult hepatitis B virus infection: risk for a blood supply, but how about individuals' health? Risk of aortic aneurysm or dissection following use of fluoroquinolones: a retrospective multinational network cohort study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1