Related Experiment Videos
Minimal reporting requirements for weight loss: current methods not ideal
John B Dixon1, Tracey McPhail, Paul E O'Brien
1Australian Centre for Obesity Research and Education, Monash Medical School, The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. john.dixon@med.monash.edu.au
Obesity Surgery
|August 18, 2005
Summary
Bariatric surgery studies report weight loss inconsistently. Standardizing reporting with weight and Body Mass Index (BMI) allows for better comparison of weight loss outcomes.
Area of Science:
- Bariatric Medicine
- Medical Informatics
Background:
- Inconsistent reporting of weight loss outcomes complicates bariatric literature analysis.
- Existing methods lack standardization, hindering meaningful comparisons between studies.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare weight loss reporting methods in surgical and medical bariatric studies.
- To establish minimal reporting requirements for consistent and comparable weight loss data.
Main Methods:
- A systematic review of weight loss reporting in bariatric studies published in 2004.
- Analysis included MEDLINE-listed journals for surgical reports and 9 leading journals for non-surgical reports.
Main Results:
- 65 surgical and 36 non-surgical reports were analyzed.
- Surgical studies commonly reported mean weight, % excess weight loss (%EWL), and BMI; medical studies reported mean weight loss, weight, % weight loss, and BMI.
- %EWL calculations varied due to differing "ideal weight" definitions, reported in only 23% of studies.
- Weight and BMI data allow calculation of other metrics, irrespective of ideal weight basis.
Conclusions:
- Reporting weight loss based on "ideal weight" introduces complexity and confusion.
- Providing consistent weight (kg) and Body Mass Index (BMI, kg/m2) at all time-points is essential.
- These two metrics should be the minimum standard for all journals reporting on intentional weight loss.