Effect of planned pauses versus continuous energy restriction on weight loss and attrition: a systematic review
Pooled result · Weight changeResult — go to the resultMean difference −0.09 kg 95% CI −1.10 to 0.93Authors' conclusion
Planned pauses were consistently found to be no more or less effective than CER for weight loss or attrition.
Study context
- Population
- Adults with overweight and/or obesity in RCTs; 77% female
- Participants
- 796 adults9 intervention arms
- Comparison
- Planned pauses vs continuous energy restriction
- Outcome
- Weight change
- Follow-up
- End of active intervention, median 26 weeks
Methodological detailsrandom-effects meta-analyses, Five databases and two trial registries searched from inception to July 2023
- Random-effects meta-analyses
- Five databases and two trial registries searched from inception to July 2023
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
end of active intervention (median 26 weeks)
Mean difference
−0.09 kg
95% CI −1.10 to 0.93
Change by group
Planned pauses
−7.09
mean · kg
Continuous energy restriction (CER)
−7.0
mean · kg
Planned pausesvs CER
mean difference −0.09 kg (95% CI −1.10 to 0.93)
Further pooled results
Mean, kg
| Outcome | Planned pauses | CER | Mean difference (kg) (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Weight change at final follow-up · median 52 weeks | −6.91 | −6.19 | −0.72 (−2.92 to 1.48) | |
| −4−202Difference, kg (linear scale) |
| Outcome | RR (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| Attrition at end of active intervention | 1.20 (0.82–1.75) | |
| Attrition at final follow-up | 1.04 (0.89–1.22) | |
| 0.512Relative risk (log scale) |
Original publication
Effect of planned pauses versus continuous energy restriction on weight loss and attrition: a systematic review. Obesity (Silver Spring). Published 21 January 2024. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →