4.7 Review

Interventions to achieve long-term weight loss in obese older people

Journal

AGE AND AGEING
Volume 39, Issue 2, Pages 176-184

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ageing/afp251

Keywords

obesity; older; weight loss; meta-analysis; elderly; systematic review

Funding

  1. Chief Scientist Office [HSRU1] Funding Source: Medline
  2. Chief Scientist Office [CZF//4/2] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Design: systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources: thirteen databases were searched, earliest date 1966 to December 2008, including Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO, the Cochrane database and EMBASE. Study selection: we included studies with participants' mean age >= 60 years and mean body mass index >= 30 kg/m(2), with outcomes at a minimum of 1 year. Data were independently extracted by two reviewers and differences resolved by consensus. Data extraction: nine eligible trials were included. Study interventions targeted diet, physical activity and mixed approaches. Populations included patients with coronary artery disease, diabetes mellitus and osteoarthritis. Results: meta-analysis (seven studies) demonstrated a modest but significant weight loss of 3.0 kg [95% confidence interval (CI) 5.1-0.9] at 1 year. Total cholesterol (four studies) did not show a significant change: -0.36 mmol/l (95% CI -0.75 to 0.04). There was no significant change in high-density lipoprotein, low-density lipoprotein or triglycerides. In one study, recurrence of hypertension or cardiovascular events was significantly reduced (hazard ratio 0.65, 95% CI 0.50-0.85). Six-minute walk test did not significantly change in one study. Health-related quality of life significantly improved in one study but did not improve in a second study. Conclusions: although modest weight reductions were observed, there is a lack of high-quality evidence to support the efficacy of weight loss programmes in older people.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available