↓ Skip to main content

A systematic search and qualitative review of reporting bias of lifestyle interventions in randomized controlled trials of diabetes prevention and management

Overview of attention for article published in Nutrition Journal, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
130 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A systematic search and qualitative review of reporting bias of lifestyle interventions in randomized controlled trials of diabetes prevention and management
Published in
Nutrition Journal, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12937-018-0390-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Natalie D. Riediger, Andrea E. Bombak, Adriana Mudryj, Jackson Bensley, Samuel Ankomah

Abstract

Scholars have documented presumptions regarding the relationships between diet, exercise, weight, and type 2 diabetes. However, it is unclear to what extent researchers contribute to these presumptions, and how often these relationships are thoroughly delineated within the context of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Thus, the aim was to conduct a systematic search and qualitative, thematic analysis of RCTs focusing on lifestyle interventions for diabetes prevention or management, to examine how researchers discuss body weight in 1) the rationale and design of their RCTs; and 2) their presentation and interpretation of their findings. We completed an electronic search for records published between 2007 and November 2016. Selection criteria included: RCTs with a follow-up period of ≥12 months; adult participants with type 2 diabetes/pre-diabetes; lifestyle interventions classified as dietary, exercise, and/or behavioural; primary outcomes of incident diabetes and complications, mortality, cardiovascular disease, and quality of life; and secondary outcomes of glycemic control and blood pressure. Nineteen articles were identified for inclusion and subject to thematic content analysis. Obesity and weight loss figured prominently in the rationale and outcomes of the majority of the articles, despite intentional exclusion of "weight loss" and "obesity" as search terms. There was ambiguity over whether weight loss was classified as inclusive to the intervention, an outcome, or a measure of adherence. Results revealed that authors frequently engaged in "spin reporting" by pooling data from intervention and control groups to test the relationship between weight lost and outcomes and in their presentation of results. Researchers need to be aware of their biases and assumptions regarding body weight in designing, analyzing, and interpreting lifestyle interventions for diabetes prevention and management.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 130 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 130 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 13%
Student > Bachelor 17 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 8%
Student > Postgraduate 8 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 6%
Other 17 13%
Unknown 53 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 24 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 22 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 4%
Sports and Recreations 5 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Other 9 7%
Unknown 62 48%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 November 2021.
All research outputs
#1,979,044
of 23,103,436 outputs
Outputs from Nutrition Journal
#483
of 1,440 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,506
of 336,158 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nutrition Journal
#8
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,103,436 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,440 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 336,158 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.