BACKGROUND: The use of computers to deliver education and support strategies has been shown to be effective in a variety of conditions. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the impact of computer-based technology on interventions for reducing weight. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Google Scholar and ClinicalTrials.gov (all updated through June 2010) for randomized controlled trials evaluating the effect of computer-based technology on education or support interventions aimed at reducing weight in overweight or obese adults. We calculated weighted mean differences (WMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) using random effects models. RESULTS: Eleven trials with 13 comparisons met inclusion criteria. Based on six comparisons, subjects who received a computer-based intervention as an addition to the standard intervention given to both groups lost significantly more weight (WMD -1.48 kg, 95% CI -2.52, -0.43). Conversely, based on six comparisons, subjects for whom computer-based technology was substituted to deliver an identical or highly comparable intervention to that of the control group lost significantly less weight (WMD 1.47 kg, 95% CI 0.13, 2.81). Significantly different weight loss seen in "addition" comparisons with less than six months of follow-up (WMD -1.95 kg, 95% CI -3.50, -0.40, two comparisons) was not seen in comparisons with longer follow-up (-1.08 kg, 95% CI -2.50, 0.34, four comparisons). Analyses based on quality and publication date did not substantially differ. CONCLUSIONS: While the addition of computer-based technology to weight loss interventions led to statistically greater weight loss, the magnitude (<1.5 kg) was small and unsustained.
BACKGROUND: The use of computers to deliver education and support strategies has been shown to be effective in a variety of conditions. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the impact of computer-based technology on interventions for reducing weight. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Google Scholar and ClinicalTrials.gov (all updated through June 2010) for randomized controlled trials evaluating the effect of computer-based technology on education or support interventions aimed at reducing weight in overweight or obese adults. We calculated weighted mean differences (WMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) using random effects models. RESULTS: Eleven trials with 13 comparisons met inclusion criteria. Based on six comparisons, subjects who received a computer-based intervention as an addition to the standard intervention given to both groups lost significantly more weight (WMD -1.48 kg, 95% CI -2.52, -0.43). Conversely, based on six comparisons, subjects for whom computer-based technology was substituted to deliver an identical or highly comparable intervention to that of the control group lost significantly less weight (WMD 1.47 kg, 95% CI 0.13, 2.81). Significantly different weight loss seen in "addition" comparisons with less than six months of follow-up (WMD -1.95 kg, 95% CI -3.50, -0.40, two comparisons) was not seen in comparisons with longer follow-up (-1.08 kg, 95% CI -2.50, 0.34, four comparisons). Analyses based on quality and publication date did not substantially differ. CONCLUSIONS: While the addition of computer-based technology to weight loss interventions led to statistically greater weight loss, the magnitude (<1.5 kg) was small and unsustained.
Authors: Ellen C Cussler; Pedro J Teixeira; Scott B Going; Linda B Houtkooper; Lauve L Metcalfe; Robert M Blew; Jennifer R Ricketts; J'Fleur Lohman; Vanessa A Stanford; Timothy G Lohman Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2008-02-28 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: J Wylie-Rosett; C Swencionis; M Ginsberg; C Cimino; S Wassertheil-Smoller; A Caban; C J Segal-Isaacson; T Martin; J Lewis Journal: J Am Diet Assoc Date: 2001-10
Authors: Dean J Wantland; Carmen J Portillo; William L Holzemer; Rob Slaughter; Eva M McGhee Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2004-11-10 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Marieke F van Wier; Geertje A M Ariëns; J Caroline Dekkers; Ingrid J M Hendriksen; Tjabe Smid; Willem van Mechelen Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2009-01-09 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: David M Levine; Stella Savarimuthu; Allison Squires; Joseph Nicholson; Melanie Jay Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2014-08-19 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: L Susan Wieland; Louise Falzon; Chris N Sciamanna; Kimberlee J Trudeau; Suzanne Brodney; Joseph E Schwartz; Karina W Davidson Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2012-08-15
Authors: Andrea T Kozak; Joanna Buscemi; Misty A W Hawkins; Monica L Wang; Jessica Y Breland; Kathryn M Ross; Anupama Kommu Journal: J Behav Med Date: 2016-10-25
Authors: Joseph E Donnelly; Jeannine Goetz; Cheryl Gibson; Debra K Sullivan; Robert Lee; Bryan K Smith; Kate Lambourne; Matthew S Mayo; Suzanne Hunt; Jae Hoon Lee; Jeffrey J Honas; Richard A Washburn Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2013-05-25 Impact factor: 5.002