Interventions to prevent obesity in children aged 5 to 11 years old.

BACKGROUND: Prevention of obesity in children is an international public health priority given the prevalence of the condition (and its significant impact on health, development and well-being). Interventions that aim to prevent obesity involve behavioural change strategies that promote healthy eating or 'activity' levels (physical activity, sedentary behaviour and/or sleep) or both, and work by reducing energy intake and/or increasing energy expenditure, respectively. There is uncertainty over which approaches are more effective and numerous new studies have been published over the last five years, since the previous version of this Cochrane review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions that aim to prevent obesity in children by modifying dietary intake or 'activity' levels, or a combination of both, on changes in BMI, zBMI score and serious adverse events. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was February 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials in children (mean age 5 years and above but less than 12 years), comparing diet or 'activity' interventions (or both) to prevent obesity with no intervention, usual care, or with another eligible intervention, in any setting. Studies had to measure outcomes at a minimum of 12 weeks post baseline. We excluded interventions designed primarily to improve sporting performance. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our outcomes were body mass index (BMI), zBMI score and serious adverse events, assessed at short- (12 weeks to < 9 months from baseline), medium- (9 months to < 15 months) and long-term (≥ 15 months) follow-up. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: This review includes 172 studies (189,707 participants); 149 studies (160,267 participants) were included in meta-analyses. One hundred forty-six studies were based in high-income countries. The main setting for intervention delivery was schools (111 studies), followed by the community (15 studies), the home (eight studies) and a clinical setting (seven studies); one intervention was conducted by telehealth and 31 studies were conducted in more than one setting. Eighty-six interventions were implemented for less than nine months; the shortest was conducted over one visit and the longest over four years. Non-industry funding was declared by 132 studies; 24 studies were funded in part or wholly by industry. Dietary interventions versus control Dietary interventions, compared with control, may have little to no effect on BMI at short-term follow-up (mean difference (MD) 0, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.10 to 0.10; 5 studies, 2107 participants; low-certainty evidence) and at medium-term follow-up (MD -0.01, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.12; 9 studies, 6815 participants; low-certainty evidence) or zBMI at long-term follow-up (MD -0.05, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.01; 7 studies, 5285 participants; low-certainty evidence). Dietary interventions, compared with control, probably have little to no effect on BMI at long-term follow-up (MD -0.17, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.13; 2 studies, 945 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and zBMI at short- or medium-term follow-up (MD -0.06, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.01; 8 studies, 3695 participants; MD -0.04, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.02; 9 studies, 7048 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Five studies (1913 participants; very low-certainty evidence) reported data on serious adverse events: one reported serious adverse events (e.g. allergy, behavioural problems and abdominal discomfort) that may have occurred as a result of the intervention; four reported no effect. Activity interventions versus control Activity interventions, compared with control, may have little to no effect on BMI and zBMI at short-term or long-term follow-up (BMI short-term: MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.13; 14 studies, 4069 participants; zBMI short-term: MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.02; 6 studies, 3580 participants; low-certainty evidence; BMI long-term: MD -0.07, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.10; 8 studies, 8302 participants; zBMI long-term: MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.04; 6 studies, 6940 participants; low-certainty evidence). Activity interventions likely result in a slight reduction of BMI and zBMI at medium-term follow-up (BMI: MD -0.11, 95% CI -0.18 to -0.05; 16 studies, 21,286 participants; zBMI: MD -0.05, 95% CI -0.09 to -0.02; 13 studies, 20,600 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Eleven studies (21,278 participants; low-certainty evidence) reported data on serious adverse events; one study reported two minor ankle sprains and one study reported the incident rate of adverse events (e.g. musculoskeletal injuries) that may have occurred as a result of the intervention; nine studies reported no effect. Dietary and activity interventions versus control Dietary and activity interventions, compared with control, may result in a slight reduction in BMI and zBMI at short-term follow-up (BMI: MD -0.11, 95% CI -0.21 to -0.01; 27 studies, 16,066 participants; zBMI: MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.00; 26 studies, 12,784 participants; low-certainty evidence) and likely result in a reduction of BMI and zBMI at medium-term follow-up (BMI: MD -0.11, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.00; 21 studies, 17,547 participants; zBMI: MD -0.05, 95% CI -0.07 to -0.02; 24 studies, 20,998 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Dietary and activity interventions compared with control may result in little to no difference in BMI and zBMI at long-term follow-up (BMI: MD 0.03, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.16; 16 studies, 22,098 participants; zBMI: MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.01; 22 studies, 23,594 participants; low-certainty evidence). Nineteen studies (27,882 participants; low-certainty evidence) reported data on serious adverse events: four studies reported occurrence of serious adverse events (e.g. injuries, low levels of extreme dieting behaviour); 15 studies reported no effect. Heterogeneity was apparent in the results for all outcomes at the three follow-up times, which could not be explained by the main setting of the interventions (school, home, school and home, other), country income status (high-income versus non-high-income), participants' socioeconomic status (low versus mixed) and duration of the intervention. Most studies excluded children with a mental or physical disability. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The body of evidence in this review demonstrates that a range of school-based 'activity' interventions, alone or in combination with dietary interventions, may have a modest beneficial effect on obesity in childhood at short- and medium-term, but not at long-term follow-up. Dietary interventions alone may result in little to no difference. Limited evidence of low quality was identified on the effect of dietary and/or activity interventions on severe adverse events and health inequalities; exploratory analyses of these data suggest no meaningful impact. We identified a dearth of evidence for home and community-based settings (e.g. delivered through local youth groups), for children living with disabilities and indicators of health inequities.

Interventions to prevent obesity in children aged 12 to 18 years old.

BACKGROUND: Prevention of obesity in adolescents is an international public health priority. The prevalence of overweight and obesity is over 25% in North and South America, Australia, most of Europe, and the Gulf region. Interventions that aim to prevent obesity involve strategies that promote healthy diets or 'activity' levels (physical activity, sedentary behaviour and/or sleep) or both, and work by reducing energy intake and/or increasing energy expenditure, respectively. There is uncertainty over which approaches are more effective, and numerous new studies have been published over the last five years since the previous version of this Cochrane Review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions that aim to prevent obesity in adolescents by modifying dietary intake or 'activity' levels, or a combination of both, on changes in BMI, zBMI score and serious adverse events. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was February 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials in adolescents (mean age 12 years and above but less than 19 years), comparing diet or 'activity' interventions (or both) to prevent obesity with no intervention, usual care, or with another eligible intervention, in any setting. Studies had to measure outcomes at a minimum of 12 weeks post baseline. We excluded interventions designed primarily to improve sporting performance. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our outcomes were BMI, zBMI score and serious adverse events, assessed at short- (12 weeks to < 9 months from baseline), medium- (9 months to < 15 months) and long-term (≥ 15 months) follow-up. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: This review includes 74 studies (83,407 participants); 54 studies (46,358 participants) were included in meta-analyses. Sixty studies were based in high-income countries. The main setting for intervention delivery was schools (57 studies), followed by home (nine studies), the community (five studies) and a primary care setting (three studies). Fifty-one interventions were implemented for less than nine months; the shortest was conducted over one visit and the longest over 28 months. Sixty-two studies declared non-industry funding; five were funded in part by industry. Dietary interventions versus control The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of dietary interventions on body mass index (BMI) at short-term follow-up (mean difference (MD) -0.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.41 to 0.06; 3 studies, 605 participants), medium-term follow-up (MD -0.65, 95% CI -1.18 to -0.11; 3 studies, 900 participants), and standardised BMI (zBMI) at long-term follow-up (MD -0.14, 95% CI -0.38 to 0.10; 2 studies, 1089 participants); all very low-certainty evidence. Compared with control, dietary interventions may have little to no effect on BMI at long-term follow-up (MD -0.30, 95% CI -1.67 to 1.07; 1 study, 44 participants); zBMI at short-term (MD -0.06, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.01; 5 studies, 3154 participants); and zBMI at medium-term (MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.21; 1 study, 112 participants) follow-up; all low-certainty evidence. Dietary interventions may have little to no effect on serious adverse events (two studies, 377 participants; low-certainty evidence). Activity interventions versus control Compared with control, activity interventions do not reduce BMI at short-term follow-up (MD -0.64, 95% CI -1.86 to 0.58; 6 studies, 1780 participants; low-certainty evidence) and probably do not reduce zBMI at medium- (MD 0, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.05; 6 studies, 5335 participants) or long-term (MD -0.05, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.02; 1 study, 985 participants) follow-up; both moderate-certainty evidence. Activity interventions do not reduce zBMI at short-term follow-up (MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.05; 7 studies, 4718 participants; high-certainty evidence), but may reduce BMI slightly at medium-term (MD -0.32, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.11; 3 studies, 2143 participants) and long-term (MD -0.28, 95% CI -0.51 to -0.05; 1 study, 985 participants) follow-up; both low-certainty evidence. Seven studies (5428 participants; low-certainty evidence) reported data on serious adverse events: two reported injuries relating to the exercise component of the intervention and five reported no effect of intervention on reported serious adverse events. Dietary and activity interventions versus control Dietary and activity interventions, compared with control, do not reduce BMI at short-term follow-up (MD 0.03, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.13; 11 studies, 3429 participants; high-certainty evidence), and probably do not reduce BMI at medium-term (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.11; 8 studies, 5612 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or long-term (MD 0.06, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.16; 6 studies, 8736 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) follow-up. They may have little to no effect on zBMI in the short term, but the evidence is very uncertain (MD -0.09, 95% CI -0.2 to 0.02; 3 studies, 515 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and they may not reduce zBMI at medium-term (MD -0.05, 95% CI -0.1 to 0.01; 6 studies, 3511 participants; low-certainty evidence) or long-term (MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.01; 7 studies, 8430 participants; low-certainty evidence) follow-up. Four studies (2394 participants) reported data on serious adverse events (very low-certainty evidence): one reported an increase in weight concern in a few adolescents and three reported no effect. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence demonstrates that dietary interventions may have little to no effect on obesity in adolescents. There is low-certainty evidence that activity interventions may have a small beneficial effect on BMI at medium- and long-term follow-up. Diet plus activity interventions may result in little to no difference. Importantly, this updated review also suggests that interventions to prevent obesity in this age group may result in little to no difference in serious adverse effects. Limitations of the evidence include inconsistent results across studies, lack of methodological rigour in some studies and small sample sizes. Further research is justified to investigate the effects of diet and activity interventions to prevent childhood obesity in community settings, and in young people with disabilities, since very few ongoing studies are likely to address these. Further randomised trials to address the remaining uncertainty about the effects of diet, activity interventions, or both, to prevent childhood obesity in schools (ideally with zBMI as the measured outcome) would need to have larger samples.

Network meta-analysis and random walks.

Network meta-analysis (NMA) is a central tool for evidence synthesis in clinical research. The results of an NMA depend critically on the quality of evidence being pooled. In assessing the validity of an NMA, it is therefore important to know the proportion contributions of each direct treatment comparison to each network treatment effect. The construction of proportion contributions is based on the observation that each row of the hat matrix represents a so-called "evidence flow network" for each treatment comparison. However, the existing algorithm used to calculate these values is associated with ambiguity according to the selection of paths. In this article, we present a novel analogy between NMA and random walks. We use this analogy to derive closed-form expressions for the proportion contributions. A random walk on a graph is a stochastic process that describes a succession of random "hops" between vertices which are connected by an edge. The weight of an edge relates to the probability that the walker moves along that edge. We use the graph representation of NMA to construct the transition matrix for a random walk on the network of evidence. We show that the net number of times a walker crosses each edge of the network is related to the evidence flow network. By then defining a random walk on the directed evidence flow network, we derive analytically the matrix of proportion contributions. The random-walk approach has none of the associated ambiguity of the existing algorithm.

Degree irregularity and rank probability bias in network meta-analysis.

Network meta-analysis (NMA) is a statistical technique for the comparison of treatment options. Outcomes of Bayesian NMA include estimates of treatment effects, and the probabilities that each treatment is ranked best, second best and so on. How exactly network topology affects the accuracy and precision of these outcomes is not fully understood. Here we carry out a simulation study and find that disparity in the number of trials involving different treatments leads to a systematic bias in estimated rank probabilities. This bias is associated with an increased variation in the precision of treatment effect estimates. Using ideas from the theory of complex networks, we define a measure of "degree irregularity" to quantify asymmetry in the number of studies involving each treatment. Our simulations indicate that more regular networks have more precise treatment effect estimates and smaller bias of rank probabilities. Conversely, these topological effects are not observed for the accuracy of treatment effect estimates. This reinforces the importance of taking into account multiple measures, rather than making decisions based on a single metric. We also find that degree regularity is a better indicator for the accuracy and precision of parameter estimates in NMA than both the total number of studies in a network and the disparity in the number of trials per comparison. These results have implications for planning future trials. We demonstrate that choosing trials which reduce the network's irregularity can improve the precision and accuracy of parameter estimates from NMA.