Gender differences in factors related to eating competence in college students: Weight-and-body shame and guilt, weight satisfaction, weight loss effort, and eating disorder risk.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to determine which weight-and-body-related attitudes and behaviors were most predictive of Eating Competence (EC) in college students amidst COVID-19, according to gender. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was part of a larger study in which an online survey was administered during autumn quarter 2020 to undergraduate students at a northwestern U.S. public university. Measures included EC (ecSI 2.0™), weight-and-body shame and/or guilt (WEBSG), weight satisfaction, current weight loss effort, and eating disorder risk. RESULTS: Of the 1996 respondents included in the final analyses, 40.2 % were eating competent (ecSI 2.0™ ≥32). Gender distribution was 71.6 % women, 23.1 % men, and 4.6 % trans-and-gender non-conforming (TGNC). WEBSG and WEB-S were higher in women and TGNC than in men. Weight satisfaction was lower in women and TGNC students than men, and 47.3 % of the sample was trying to lose weight at the time of the study. Eating disorder (ED) risk was prevalent with nearly 34 % scoring ≥2 on SCOFF and 33 % reporting they saw themselves as having an ED now or in the past. Significant factors of EC varied for each gender, although WEB-S was a shared model factor for all genders. CONCLUSION: EC may be protective, as this was related to less WEB-S in all genders; less WEB-G and greater weight satisfaction in men and women; and lower likelihood of ED risk and trying to lose weight among women. Further research is needed to elucidate whether these maladaptive weight-and-body attitudes and behaviors in college students can be improved to increase EC. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V, descriptive cross-sectional study.

The Usefulness of Meta-Analyses to Hip and Knee Surgeons.

BACKGROUND: Comprehensive systematic reviews of results from homogenous or heterogeneous clinical trials, meta-analyses are used to summarize and to interpret studies. Proponents believe that their use can increase study power and improve precision results. Critics emphasize that heterogeneity between studies and bias of individual studies compromise the value of results. The methodology of meta-analyses has improved over time, utilizing statistical analysis to reduce bias and examining heterogeneity. With an increasing trend of meta-analyses in orthopaedic literature, this study aimed to investigate quality and clinical utility of meta-analyses for total knee arthroplasty and total hip arthroplasty. METHODS: A systematic review of total knee arthroplasty and total hip arthroplasty meta-analyses in 3 major orthopaedic journals from January 2000 to August 2017 was performed. Three authors independently reviewed eligible meta-analyses. A quality assessment was conducted using the Oxman-Guyatt Index. Reporting quality was assessed using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). Two high-volume, fellowship-trained, attending surgeons specializing in total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty independently, in a blinded fashion, reviewed 24 of the highest-scored meta-analyses. RESULTS: There were 114 studies meeting eligibility criteria, 25 published from 2000 to 2009 and 89 published from 2010 to 2017, a 3.6-fold increase. The mean Oxman-Guyatt Index score was 3.89 points, with 12 high-quality studies, 87 moderate-quality studies, and 15 low-quality studies. The mean PRISMA score for all meta-analyses was 22.2 points, with 79% classified as low to moderate. Only 23 studies listed the Level of Evidence, and 8 were Level-I studies and 9 were Level-II studies. Studies with >15 randomized controlled trials were associated with higher PRISMA and Oxman-Guyatt Index scores. In 12 articles, we were unable to decipher the types of studies included. Only 39.4% of studies showed the risk of bias. Of the 24 studies identified as high quality per the PRISMA statement, 71% were determined to be either clinically unimportant or inconclusive. CONCLUSIONS: The number of total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty meta-analyses has markedly increased over the past decades. The majority of published meta-analyses from 3 major orthopaedic journals were not performed in accordance with established PRISMA guidelines. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Many published meta-analyses are low to moderate quality, and clinicians should cautiously draw conclusions from poorly executed meta-analyses.