Skip to main content
. 2019 Jul 20;27(9):1390–1403. doi: 10.1002/oby.22540

Table 1.

Summary of findings

Intervention outcome Number of studies and study design Reason for downgraded quality Effect estimate and direction of effects GRADE
Food labeling
Energy consumed None NA NA NA
Energy expended None NA NA NA
Fiscal measures
Energy consumed 1 RCT Consistency could not be assessed, study limitations No statistically significant difference (SMD, 0.10; 95% CI: −0.24 to 0.44) Very low
Energy expended None NA NA NA
Physical environment and transportation
Energy consumed 1 CT Inconsistency ES could not be calculated for the CT (but favored the intervention group); the control group had lower intake in the cohort study (SMD, 0.41; 95% CI: 0.14 to 0.69; 1 cohort study) Very low
1 cohort study
Energy expended None NA NA NA
Supply of food and lifestyle commodities
Energy consumed 3 RCTs Inconsistency, study limitations RCTs report positive but not statistically significant differences (SMD, −0.23; 95% CI: −0.45 to −0.00; 3 RCTs); the CT reported insufficient data Low
1 CT
Energy expended None NA NA NA
Work site interventions
Energy consumed 2 RCTs Inconsistency, study limitations 2 studies reported positive results, but ES could not be computed; 2 studies reported conflicting results and were based on diverse study designs (SMD, −0.20; 95% CI: −0.53 to 0.13; 1 RCT; SMD, −0.98; 95% CI: −1.32 to −0.65; 1 pre‐post study) Very low
1 CT
1 pre‐post study
Energy expended 6 RCTs Inconsistency, imprecision 4 RCTs found no statistically significant difference (SMD, 0.22; 95% CI: −0.17 to 0.61; 4 RCTs); 2 pre‐post studies reported improvements but could not be combined in a summary estimate Low
1 CT
2 pre‐post studies
Population‐based health care initiatives
Energy consumed 15 RCTs Inconsistency (sensitivity analysis) Reduced consumption (SMD, −0.13; 95% CI: −0.18 to −0.08; 9 RCTs) Moderate
Energy consumed, children only 2 RCTs Imprecision No statistically significant difference (SMD, −0.19; 95% CI: −0.61 to 0.24; 2 RCTs) Low
Energy expended 5 RCTs Study limitations, inconsistency Studies could not be combined; effect varied Very low
School‐based interventions
Energy consumed, children 10 Inconsistency Significant reduction (SMD, −0.11; 95% CI: −0.19 to −0.04; 6 studies) Moderate
6 RCTs
3 CTs
1 cohort study
Energy expended, children 5 RCTs Inconsistency No systematic effect (SMD, −0.08; 95% CI: −0.65 to 0.49; 6 trials) Low
1 CT
2 pre‐post studies
Health education campaigns
Energy consumed 17 RCTs Inconsistency RCTs showed a statistically significant effect (SMD, −0.17; 95% CI: −0.26 to −0.08; 10 RCTs); pre‐post studies both positive but could not be combined Moderate
3 pre‐post studies
Energy consumed, children only 3 RCTs Inconsistency, imprecision SMD, −0.20; 95% CI: −0.41 to 0.01; 3 RCTs Very low
Energy expended 13 RCTs Inconsistency Positive pooled effects but individual results varied (SMD, 0.37; 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.67; 10 RCTs; SMD, 0.48; 95% CI: 0.16 to 0.79; 2 pre‐post studies) Low
2 pre‐post studies
Energy expended, children only 2 RCTs Inconsistency, imprecision Difference not statistically significant (SMD, 0.06; 95% CI: −0.41 to 0.52; 2 RCTs) Very low
Social‐group approaches
Energy consumed 2 RCTs Inconsistency, imprecision Studies could not be combined; conflicting results Very low
1 CT
Energy expended 7 RCTs Inconsistency Statistically significant increase (SMD, 0.26; 95% CI: −0.07 to 0.44; 8 trials) Moderate
1 CT
1 pre‐post study
Energy expended, children only 3 RCTs Imprecision Not statistically significant (SMD, 0.17; 95% CI: −0.17 to 0.51; 3 RCTs) Low

CT, controlled trial; ES, effect size; NA, not applicable; RCT, randomized controlled trial; SMD, standardized mean difference.