4.6 Review

Clinical effectiveness of very-low-energy diets in the management of weight loss: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Journal

OBESITY REVIEWS
Volume 17, Issue 3, Pages 225-234

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/obr.12366

Keywords

Meta-analysis; obesity; systematic review; VLED

Funding

  1. Cambridge Weight Plan
  2. Rosemary Conley
  3. Ethicon
  4. MRC [MC_U105960389] Funding Source: UKRI
  5. Medical Research Council [MC_U105960389] Funding Source: researchfish
  6. National Institute for Health Research [CL-2014-09-006, SPCR-001] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Guidelines suggest that very-low-energy diets (VLEDs) should be used to treat obesity only when rapid weight loss is clinically indicated because of concerns about rapid weight regain. Literature databases were searched from inception to November 2014. Randomized trials were included where the intervention included a VLED and the comparator was no intervention or an intervention that could be given in a general medical setting in adults that were overweight. Two reviewers characterized the population, intervention, control groups, outcomes and appraised quality. The primary outcome was weight change at 12months from baseline. Compared with a behavioural programme alone, VLEDs combined with a behavioural programme achieved -3.9kg [95% confidence interval (CI) -6.7 to -1.1] at 1year. The difference at 24months was -1.4kg (95%CI -2.6 to -0.2) and at 38-60months was -1.3kg (95%CI -2.9 to 0.2). Nineteen per cent of the VLED group discontinued treatment prematurely compared with 20% of the comparator groups, relative risk 0.96 (0.56 to 1.66). One serious adverse event, hospitalization with cholecystitis, was reported in the VLED group and none in the comparator group. Very-low-energy diets with behavioural programmes achieve greater long-term weight loss than behavioural programmes alone, appear tolerable and lead to few adverse events suggesting they could be more widely used than current guidelines suggest.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available