PMCCPMCCPMCC

Search tips
Search criteria 

Advanced

 
Logo of nihpaAbout Author manuscriptsSubmit a manuscriptNIH Public Access; Author Manuscript; Accepted for publication in peer reviewed journal;
 
Int J Obes (Lond). Author manuscript; available in PMC Sep 28, 2009.
Published in final edited form as:
PMCID: PMC2753515
NIHMSID: NIHMS101956
Industry funding and the reporting quality of large long-term weight loss trials
Olivia Thomas,1,2 Lehana Thabane,3,4 James Douketis,6,7 Rong Chu,5 Andrew O. Westfall,8 and David B. Allison2,8,9
1Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
2Clinical Nutrition Research Center, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
3Centre for Evaluation of Medicines, St. Joseph’s Healthcare, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
4Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
5Department of Health Care and Epidemiology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
6St Joseph’s Healthcare, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
7Department of Medicine, McMaster, University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
8Department of Biostatistics, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
9Department of Nutrition Sciences. University of Alabama at Birmingham. Birmingham, AL, USA.
Address correspondence: David B. Allison, Ph.D, Section of Statistical Genetics, Department of Biostatistics, Ryals Public Health Building, Suite 414, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 1665 University Boulevard, Birmingham, Alabama, USA. Phone: 205-975-9169, Fax: 205-975-2540, Dallison/at/uab.edu
Background
Quality of reporting (QR) in industry-funded research is a concern of the scientific community. Greater scrutiny of industry-sponsored research reporting has been suggested, although differences in QR by sponsorship type have not been evaluated in weight loss interventions.
Objective
To evaluate the association of funding source and QR of long-term obesity randomized clinical trials.
Methods
We analyzed papers that reported long-term weight loss trials. Articles were obtained through searches of MEDLINE, HealthStar, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register between the years 1966–2003. QR scores were determined for each study based upon expanded criteria from the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist for a maximum score of 44 points. Studies were coded by category of industry support (0=no industry support, 1= industry support, 2= in kind contribution from industry and 3=duality of interest reported). Individual CONSORT reporting criteria were tabulated by funding type. An independent samples t-test compared differences in QR scores by funding source and the Wilcox-Mann-Whitney test and generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used for sensitivity analyses.
Results
Of the 63 RCTs evaluated, 67% were industry-supported trials. Industry funding was associated with higher QR score in long-term weight loss trials compared to non-industry funded studies (Mean QR (SD): Industry = 27.9 (4.1), Non-Industry =23.4 (4.1); p < 0.0005). The Wilcox-Mann-Whitney test confirmed this result (p<0.0005). Controlling for the year of publication and whether paper was published before the CONSORT statement was released in a GEE regression analysis, the direction and magnitude of effect was similar and statistically significant (p=0.035). Of the individual criteria that prior research has associated with biases, industry funding was associated with greater reporting of intent-to-treat analysis (p=0.0158), but was not different from non-industry studies in reporting of treatment allocation and blinding.
Conclusion
Our findings suggest that efforts to improve reporting quality be directed at all obesity RCTs irrespective of funding source.
Keywords: Randomized clinical trials, obesity, CONSORT, reporting quality, weight loss, industry funding
“Research studies in biomedical journals are increasingly scrutinised, not only for their scientific findings and clinical and public health implications, but also because of … concerns about misleading reporting of industry-sponsored research.”1
The above quotation, the opening line in an editorial in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), evinces strong concern regarding potential influence of industry-sponsorship in the literature. The editors of JAMA, in reaction to the concern, suggested policies of extra scrutiny for industry-funded research. In response, an editorial in BMJ decried this as unfair and absurd.2
For the scientific community and society at large to benefit maximally from biomedical research, the quality and integrity of each step in the research process must be maximized. Such steps include: (A) Selection of relevant questions; (B) Design of research suitable to address those questions; (C) Rigorous execution of the design; (D) Faithful recording of the data; (E) Appropriate statistical analysis of the data; (F) A decision to publish a report of study; (G) Clear, accurate, and thorough reporting of the study; and (H) Reasonable “second-level” dissemination and interpretation of the findings in press-releases, mass media coverage, scholarly reviews, expert testimony, blue-ribbon panels, and other venues. In each of these steps, there is an opportunity for some factors to inappropriately exert influence.
One such factor that is frequently discussed is financial duality (aka ‘conflict’) of interest (DOI).3 Indeed, at least three papers46 suggest that in nutrition and obesity research, published papers in which authors were funded by or had other financial ties to industry were more likely than were other papers to contain results or interpretations that favor the industry or company producing the product or service under study. Similar findings have been observed on multiple occasions in other areas of biomedical research.7,8 The reasons for and appropriate interpretation of these findings remain open to question.9 Nevertheless, concern about inappropriate influences (be they from financial or other DOIs) remains. The most common suggestion for dealing with the potential for inappropriate influence due to financial DOIs is disclosure of the DOI. However, disclosure is likely to be at best ineffectual5 and at worst antithetical to focusing on scientific method,10 derogatory toward industry-funded authors,11 and possibly productive of exactly the biases it is intended to diminish.12
Hence, we believe it will be more fruitful to identify factors that lead to better or poorer performance in each of the stages listed above in the hopes that identification of such factors may lead to ideas about policies and practices that can minimize inappropriate influences and maximize performance. If we are to maintain the public trust, crucial for many reasons,13 we must investigate this area.
In this paper we focus on Step G of the list of research steps presented earlier and ask whether industry funding leads to better or worse reporting of large, long-term randomized clinical trials (RCTs). We focus on RCTs for obesity treatment. This is an especially important area. Obesity is quite prevalent and causes a number of ill-effects including earlier mortality.14 New and better obesity treatments are needed and, as NIDDK wrote, “Well conducted clinical trials are the fastest and safest way to find improved treatments and preventions….”15
Reports evaluated
The database1678 of papers evaluated has been described earlier79. In brief “studies were selected by searching MEDLINE (1966 to September 2003), HealthSTAR (1975 to September 2003), and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (1990 to September 2003).” Inclusion criteria were: (a) a randomized controlled trial; (b) a sample consisting of overweight or obese adults with a mean body mass index ≥ 25 kg/m2; (c) investigation of a weight loss intervention; (d) duration of patient follow-up ≥ 1 year. Exclusion criteria were: (a) patients were required to attain a weight loss target to qualify for study enrollment; (b) the weight loss intervention was not approved for clinical use; (c) the weight loss intervention was approved only for short-term use.79
Primary Outcome Measure
The primary outcome measure was quality of reporting (QR). QR was coded and described more fully by Thabane et al.79 Briefly, the authors used the CONSORT Statement80,81 to assess QR. For each trial, the authors, via an independent double review, determined whether each of 44 detailed CONSORT reporting criteria contained within the checklist were satisfied. Eight of the 44 CONSORT criteria associated with methodologic quality from the results and methods sections were examined. The CONSORT statement is considered the medical industry standard of reporting and contains elements that have been used to evaluate methodologic quality of RCTs.82,83 Face and content validity have been evaluated for the CONSORT statement, which has been endorsed by numerous peer-reviewed journals and scientific organizations83.
Assessment of Industry Support
A full copy of each paper was independently reviewed by each of two authors and placed into one of the 4 categories as defined in Table 1. The two reviewers then compared their codings of funding source, which was determined from financial information disclosed in each publication and an agreement of over 89% (56 of 63 publications) was obtained. The remaining 7 publications were re-examined and consensus was reached by the two reviewers. In all but two cases, the discrepancies were the result of a transcription error or oversight on the part of one coder and corrected. In the final two cases, the disagreement entailed a question regarding whether funding from a for-profit foundation established by but independent of a for-profit pharmaceutical company constituted industry support. Because of the difficulty in reaching a definitive decision on this and because there were only two such studies, we ran all analyses twice, first with these coded as non-industry and then in a sensitivity analysis coding these studies as industry-funded.
Table 1
Table 1
Categories of Industry Support
Statistical Analysis
Descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation [SD]) are tabulated (Table 2). The primary inferential analysis consisted of a simple independent samples t-test on the QR scores comparing Category 0 (no industry funding) with Category 1 (industry funded). Subsequently, a number of sensitivity and secondary analyses were conducted including: (A) repeating the primary analysis with a non-parametric Wilcox-Mann-Whitney test; (B) repeating the primary analysis using generalized estimating equations (GEE)84 to account for possible clustering within journals to allow for possible correlation in the residuals by journal; (C) using the GEE regression to control for both whether the paper was published after the 1996 publication of the CONSORT guidelines80,81 on reporting of RCTs and year of publication; (D) repeating all analyses using only non-drug studies (there were no drug studies in Category 0); (E) repeating all analyses after recoding studies in Categories 2 and 3 as in Category 0 (i.e., non-industry funded); (F) repeating all analyses after excluding 4 non-industry studies where funding source was specified. The criterion for statistical significance was set at a 2-tailed α of 0.05. All analyses were done using (SPSS, version 15.0).
Table 2
Table 2
Descriptive statistics of reporting quality (QR) scores by industry support.
Table 2 contains descriptive statistics. As can be seen, the majority (close to 2/3rds) of long-term weight loss studies are industry-funded. The variances in QR scores is almost identical for industry and non-industry-funded studies, but QR scores tend to be higher (i.e., better reporting) for industry funded studies. QR scores for industry-funded drug studies tended to be higher than industry-funded non-drug studies.
The t-test strongly indicated that the average QR was significantly higher for industry-funded than non-industry funded studies (t = 4.02; p < 0.0005; df = 57), with no evidence of heteroscedasticity by Levene’s test (p = .640). This was confirmed by the Wilcox-Mann-Whitney test (p < 0.0005) and the GEE analysis (p < 0.0005). In a GEE regression analysis conditioning on year of publication and an indicator variable for whether the paper was published after the 1996 CONSORT statement was released, the result was in the same direction and remained statistically significant (p = 0.0354). When examining only non-drug studies, the statistical significance was diminished with the much smaller sample size, but again, results were in the same direction (see Table 3). In addition, all analyses were repeated recoding the two aforementioned studies supported by for-profit foundations established by pharmaceutical companies as being industry-supported. Finally, all analyses were repeated after excluding four non-industry studies where the funding source was unspecified. Results from the final two analyses were virtually identical to those of other analysis strategies (data not shown).
Table 3
Table 3
*Summary of inferential testing - Estimated mean difference of industry funded verses non-industry funded and p-values.
The results of this study show that industry funded studies are associated with higher QR on average. In this relatively small sample of weight-loss studies restricted to both those that were relatively large and long-term it was difficult to disentangle the independent effects or association of industry funding from that of whether the study was a drug study, both associated with better reporting.79 Nevertheless, even when examining only non-drug studies, the numerically superior QR was found for industry-funded research, though the statistical significance was diminished. Future research should evaluate whether such associations exist for shorter-term studies and smaller studies.
For the scientific process to proceed effectively, it is important that all studies, both industry-funded and not, be reported with the highest quality possible. This is because it is through the comprehension of published research reports that the scientific community at large can judge the merits and import of the findings.10 If industry-funded reporting was of lower quality than non-industry-funded reporting, this would exacerbate existing concerns about potential biases being created by industry funding.5 In contrast, our results suggest that if anything, industry funding is associated with higher reporting quality. This suggests that, while continued efforts to improve reporting quality are warranted, such efforts should be directed at non-industry-funded research at least as much as at industry-funded research. A benefit of the greater funding offered by industry, the greater scrutiny of industry, or perhaps greater concern or training of industry personnel for rigorous reporting may be an enhancement of the overall reporting quality in the literature, at least for long-term weight loss studies.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to Dr. Stacey Cofield for her helpful comments on the statistical analysis.
Contributors: OT participated in the coding of the data, helped to interpret the results, and participated in drafting the manuscript. LT, JD, and RC collected the initial sample of studies, coded the QR scores, advised on the conduct of analyses, and edited the manuscript. DBA conceived the project, participated in the coding of the data, analyzed the data, and led the writing of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was supported in part by NIH grant P30DK056336.
Footnotes
Competing interests: LT is the clinical trials mentor for the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. DBA has received grants, honoraria, consulting fees, and donations from numerous food, pharmaceutical, and other companies as well as on-profit organizations and government agencies with interests in obesity-related issues.
Ethical approval: Not required.
1. Fontanarosa PB, Flanagin A, DeAngelis CD. Reporting conflicts of interest, financial aspects of research, and role of sponsors in funded studies. JAMA. 2005;294:110–111. [PubMed]
2. Rothman KJ, Evans S. Extra scrutiny for industry funded trials. BMJ. 2005;331:1350–1351. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
3. Nestle M. Food company sponsorship of nutrition research and professional activities: a conflict of interest? Public Health Nutr. 2001;4:1015–1022. [PubMed]
4. Lesser LI, Ebbeling CB, Goozner M, Wypij D, Ludwig DS. Relationship between funding source and conclusion among nutrition-related scientific articles. PLoS Med. 2007;4:e5. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
5. Levine J, Gussow JD, Hastings D, Eccher A. Authors' financial relationships with the food and beverage industry and their published positions on the fat substitute olestra. Am J Public Health. 2003;93:664–669. [PubMed]
6. Vartanian LR, Schwartz MB, Brownell KD. Effects of soft drink consumption on nutrition and health: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Public Health. 2007;97:667–675. [PubMed]
7. Reynolds T. Industry-funded versus publicly funded trials: are the standards the same? J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001;93:1590–1592. [PubMed]
8. Gardner A. Industry-funded breast cancer trials show more positive results. Int J Health Serv. 2007;37:591–593. [PubMed]
9. Katan MB. Does industry sponsorship undermine the integrity of nutrition research? PLoS Med. 2007;4:e6. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
10. Borgert CJ. Conflict of interest or contravention of science? Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2007;48:4–5. [PubMed]
11. Rothman KJ. Conflict of interest. The new McCarthyism in science. JAMA. 1993;269:2782–2784. [PubMed]
12. Cain DM, Loewenstein G, Moore DA. The dirt on coming clean: Perverse effects of disclosing conflicts of interest. Journal of Legal Studies. 2005;34:1–25.
13. Bleich S, Blendon R, Adams A. Trust in scientific experts on obesity: implications for awareness and behavior change. Obesity. 2007;15:2145–2156. [PubMed]
14. Klein S, Burke LE, Bray GA, Blair S, Allison DB, Pi-Sunyer X, et al. Clinical implications of obesity with specific focus on cardiovascular disease: A statement for professionals from the American Heart Association Council on Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Metabolism: endorsed by the American College of Cardiology Foundation. Circulation. 2004;110:2952–2967. [PubMed]
15. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Disease. Obesity Clinical Research. 2004. www.niddk.nih.gov/patient/patientobesity.htm.
16. Lechner GW, Elliott DW. Comparison of weight loss after gastric exclusion and partitioning. Arch Surg. 1983;118:685–692. [PubMed]
17. Stamler R, Stamler J, Grimm R, et al. Nutritional therapy for high blood pressure. Final report of a four-year randomized controlled trial--the Hypertension Control Program. JAMA. 1987;257:1484–1491. [PubMed]
18. Fortmann SP, Haskell WL, Wood PD. Effects of weight loss on clinic and ambulatory blood pressure in normotensive men. Am J Cardiol. 1988;62:89–93. [PubMed]
19. Perri MG, McAllister DA, Gange JJ, Jordan RC, McAdoo G, Nezu AM. Effects of four maintenance programs on the long-term management of obesity. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1988;56:529–534. [PubMed]
20. King AC, Frey-Hewitt B, Dreon DM, Wood PD. Diet vs exercise in weight maintenance. The effects of minimal intervention strategies on long-term outcomes in men. Arch Intern Med. 1989;149:2741–2746. [PubMed]
21. Hall JC, Watts JM, O'Brien PE, et al. Gastric surgery for morbid obesity. The Adelaide Study. Ann Surg. 1990;211:419–427. [PubMed]
22. Eriksson KF, Lindgarde F. Prevention of type 2 (non-insulin-dependent) diabetes mellitus by diet and physical exercise. The 6-year Malmo feasibility study. Diabetologia. 1991;34:891–898. [PubMed]
23. Jalkanen L. The effect of a weight reduction program on cardiovascular risk factors among overweight hypertensives in primary health care. Scand J Soc Med. 1991;19:66–71. [PubMed]
24. Sheppard L, Kristal AR, Kushi LH. Weight loss in women participating in a randomized trial of low-fat diets. Am J Clin Nutr. 1991;54:821–828. [PubMed]
25. Foreyt J, Goodrick G, Reeves R, Raynaud A. Response of free-living adults to behavioral treatment of obesity: attrition and compliance to exercise. Behav Ther. 1993;24:659–669.
26. Hadaka P, Karvetti RL, Ronnemaa T. Group vs. individual weight reduction programmes in the treatment of severe obesity--a five year follow-up study. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1993;17:97–102. [PubMed]
27. Hakala P. Weight reduction programmes at a rehabilitation centre and a health centre based on group counselling and individual support: short- and long-term follow-up study. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1994;18:483–489. [PubMed]
28. Wadden TA, Foster GD, Letizia KA. One-year behavioral treatment of obesity: comparison of moderate and severe caloric restriction and the effects of weight maintenance therapy. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1994;62:165–171. [PubMed]
29. Wing RR, Blair E, Marcus M, Epstein LH, Harvey J. Year-long weight loss treatment for obese patients with type II diabetes: does including an intermittent very-low-calorie diet improve outcome? Am J Med. 1994;97:354–362. [PubMed]
30. Jeffery RW, Hellerstedt WL, French SA, Baxter JE. A randomized trial of counseling for fat restriction versus calorie restriction in the treatment of obesity. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1995;19:132–137. [PubMed]
31. Manning RM, Jung RT, Leese GP, Newton RW. The comparison of four weight reduction strategies aimed at overweight diabetic patients. Diabet Med. 1995;12:409–415. [PubMed]
32. Pascale RW, Wing RR, Butler BA, Mullen M, Bononi P. Effects of a behavioral weight loss program stressing calorie restriction versus calorie plus fat restriction in obese individuals with NIDDM or a family history of diabetes. Diabetes Care. 1995;18:1241–1248. [PubMed]
33. Fontbonne A, Charles MA, Juhan-Vague I, et al. The effect of metformin on the metabolic abnormalities associated with upper-body fat distribution. BIGPRO Study Group. Diabetes Care. 1996;19:920–926. [PubMed]
34. Skender ML, Goodrick GK, Del Junco DJ, et al. Comparison of 2-year weight loss trends in behavioral treatments of obesity: diet, exercise, and combination interventions. J Am Diet Assoc. 1996;96:342–346. [PubMed]
35. Pasman WJ, Westerterp-Plantenga MS, Muls E, Vansant G, van Ree J, Saris WH. The effectiveness of long-term fibre supplementation on weight maintenance in weight-reduced women. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1997;21:548–555. [PubMed]
36. Rossner S, Flaten H. VLCD versus LCD in long-term treatment of obesity. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1997;21:22–26. [PubMed]
37. Ryttig KR, Flaten H, Rossner S. Long-term effects of a very low calorie diet (Nutrilett) in obesity treatment. A prospective, randomized, comparison between VLCD and a hypocaloric diet+behavior modification and their combination. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1997;21:574–579. [PubMed]
38. Torgerson JS, Lissner L, Lindroos AK, Kruijer H, Sjostrom L. VLCD plus dietary and behavioural support versus support alone in the treatment of severe obesity. A randomised two-year clinical trial. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1997;21:987–994. [PubMed]
39. Charles MA, Morange P, Eschwege E, Andre P, Vague P, Juhan-Vague I. Effect of weight change and metformin on fibrinolysis and the von Willebrand factor in obese nondiabetic subjects: the BIGPRO1 Study. Biguanides and the Prevention of the Risk of Obesity. Diabetes Care. 1998;21:1967–1972. [PubMed]
40. Hollander PA, Elbein SC, Hirsch IB, et al. Role of orlistat in the treatment of obese patients with type 2 diabetes. A 1-year randomized double-blind study. Diabetes Care. 1998;21:1288–1294. [PubMed]
41. Sjostrom L, Rissanen A, Andersen T, et al. Randomised placebo-controlled trial of orlistat for weight loss and prevention of weight regain in obese patients. European Multicentre Orlistat Study Group. Lancet. 1998;352:167–172. [PubMed]
42. Wing RR, Venditti E, Jakicic JM, Polley BA, Lang W. Lifestyle intervention in overweight individuals with a family history of diabetes. Diabetes Care. 1998;21:350–359. [PubMed]
43. Andersen RE, Wadden TA, Bartlett SJ, Zemel B, Verde TJ, Franckowiak SC. Effects of lifestyle activity vs structured aerobic exercise in obese women: a randomized trial. JAMA. 1999;281:335–340. [PubMed]
44. Davidson MH, Hauptman J, DiGirolamo M, et al. Weight control and risk factor reduction in obese subjects treated for 2 years with orlistat: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 1999;281:235–242. [PubMed]
45. Davidson MH, Hauptman J, DiGirolamo M, et al. Weight control and risk factor reduction in obese subjects treated for 2 years with orlistat: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 1999;281:235–242. [PubMed]
46. Ditschuneit HH, Flechtner-Mors M, Johnson TD, Adler G. Metabolic and weight-loss effects of a long-term dietary intervention in obese patients. Am J Clin Nutr. 1999;69:198–204. [PubMed]
47. Hill JO, Hauptman J, Anderson JW, et al. Orlistat, a lipase inhibitor, for weight maintenance after conventional dieting: a 1-y study. Am J Clin Nutr. 1999;69:1108–1116. [PubMed]
48. Jakicic JM, Winters C, Lang W, Wing RR. Effects of intermittent exercise and use of home exercise equipment on adherence, weight loss, and fitness in overweight women: a randomized trial. JAMA. 1999;282:1554–1560. [PubMed]
49. Jones DW, Miller ME, Wofford MR, et al. The effect of weight loss intervention on antihypertensive medication requirements in the hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) study. Am J Hypertens. 1999;12:1175–1180. [PubMed]
50. Torgerson JS, Agren L, Sjostrom L. Effects on body weight of strict or liberal adherence to an initial period of VLCD treatment. A randomised, one-year clinical trial of obese subjects. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1999;23:190–197. [PubMed]
51. Donnelly JE, Jacobsen DJ, Heelan KS, Seip R, Smith S. The effects of 18 months of intermittent vs. continuous exercise on aerobic capacity, body weight and composition, and metabolic fitness in previously sedentary, moderately obese females. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2000;24:566–572. [PubMed]
52. Finer N, James WP, Kopelman PG, Lean ME, Williams G. One-year treatment of obesity: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre study of orlistat, a gastrointestinal lipase inhibitor. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2000;24:306–313. [PubMed]
53. Flechtner-Mors M, Ditschuneit HH, Johnson TD, Suchard MA, Adler G. Metabolic and weight loss effects of long-term dietary intervention in obese patients: four-year results. Obes Res. 2000;8:399–402. [PubMed]
54. Hauptman J, Lucas C, Boldrin MN, Collins H, Segal KR. Orlistat in the long-term treatment of obesity in primary care settings. Arch Fam Med. 2000;9:160–167. [PubMed]
55. He J, Whelton PK, Appel LJ, Charleston J, Klag MJ. Long-term effects of weight loss and dietary sodium reduction on incidence of hypertension. Hypertension. 2000;35:544–549. [PubMed]
56. James WP, Astrup A, Finer N, et al. Effect of sibutramine on weight maintenance after weight loss: a randomised trial. STORM Study Group. Sibutramine Trial of Obesity Reduction and Maintenance. Lancet. 2000;356:2119–2125. [PubMed]
57. Lindgarde F. The effect of orlistat on body weight and coronary heart disease risk profile in obese patients: the Swedish Multimorbidity Study. J Intern Med. 2000;248:245–254. [PubMed]
58. McMahon FG, Fujioka K, Singh BN, et al. Efficacy and safety of sibutramine in obese white and African American patients with hypertension: a 1-year, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160:2185–2191. [PubMed]
59. Metz JA, Stern JS, Kris-Etherton P, et al. A randomized trial of improved weight loss with a prepared meal plan in overweight and obese patients: impact on cardiovascular risk reduction. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160:2150–2158. [PubMed]
60. Rossner S, Sjostrom L, Noack R, Meinders AE, Noseda G. Weight loss, weight maintenance, and improved cardiovascular risk factors after 2 years treatment with orlistat for obesity. European Orlistat Obesity Study Group. Obes Res. 2000;8:49–61. [PubMed]
61. Ashley JM, St Jeor ST, Schrage JP, et al. Weight control in the physician's office. Arch Intern Med. 2001;161:1599–1604. [PubMed]
62. Ditschuneit HH, Flechtner-Mors M. Value of structured meals for weight management: risk factors and long-term weight maintenance. Obes Res. 2001;9 Suppl 4:284S–289S. [PubMed]
63. McManus K, Antinoro L, Sacks F. A randomized controlled trial of a moderate-fat, low-energy diet compared with a low fat, low-energy diet for weight loss in overweight adults. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2001;25:1503–1511. [PubMed]
64. Rothacker DQ, Staniszewski BA, Ellis PK. Liquid meal replacement vs traditional food: a potential model for women who cannot maintain eating habit change. J Am Diet Assoc. 2001;101:345–347. [PubMed]
65. Smith IG, Goulder MA. Randomized placebo-controlled trial of long-term treatment with sibutramine in mild to moderate obesity. J Fam Pract. 2001;50:505–512. [PubMed]
66. Tuomilehto J, Lindstrom J, Eriksson JG, et al. Prevention of type 2 diabetes mellitus by changes in lifestyle among subjects with impaired glucose tolerance. N Engl J Med. 2001;344:1343–1350. [PubMed]
67. Bakris G, Calhoun D, Egan B, Hellmann C, Dolker M, Kingma I. Orlistat improves blood pressure control in obese subjects with treated but inadequately controlled hypertension. J Hypertens. 2002;20:2257–2267. [PubMed]
68. Broom I, Wilding J, Stott P, Myers N. Randomised trial of the effect of orlistat on body weight and cardiovascular disease risk profile in obese patients: UK Multimorbidity Study. Int J Clin Pract. 2002;56:494–499. [PubMed]
69. Ditschuneit HH, Frier HI, Flechtner-Mors M. Lipoprotein responses to weight loss and weight maintenance in high-risk obese subjects. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2002;56:264–270. [PubMed]
70. Hanefeld M, Sachse G. The effects of orlistat on body weight and glycaemic control in overweight patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2002;4:415–423. [PubMed]
71. Kelley DE, Bray GA, Pi-Sunyer FX, et al. Clinical efficacy of orlistat therapy in overweight and obese patients with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes: A 1-year randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care. 2002;25:1033–1041. [PubMed]
72. Knowler WC, Barrett-Connor E, Fowler SE, et al. Reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes with lifestyle intervention or metformin. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:393–403. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
73. McMahon FG, Weinstein SP, Rowe E, Ernst KR, Johnson F, Fujioka K. Sibutramine is safe and effective for weight loss in obese patients whose hypertension is well controlled with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. J Hum Hypertens. 2002;16:5–11. [PubMed]
74. Miles JM, Leiter L, Hollander P, et al. Effect of orlistat in overweight and obese patients with type 2 diabetes treated with metformin. Diabetes Care. 2002;25:1123–1128. [PubMed]
75. Donnelly JE, Hill JO, Jacobsen DJ, et al. Effects of a 16-month randomized controlled exercise trial on body weight and composition in young, overweight men and women: the Midwest Exercise Trial. Arch Intern Med. 2003;163:1343–1350. [PubMed]
76. Irwin ML, Yasui Y, Ulrich CM, et al. Effect of exercise on total and intra-abdominal body fat in postmenopausal women: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2003;289:323–330. [PubMed]
77. Torgerson JS, Hauptman J, Boldrin MN, Sjostrom L. XENical in the prevention of diabetes in obese subjects (XENDOS) study: a randomized study of orlistat as an adjunct to lifestyle changes for the prevention of type 2 diabetes in obese patients. Diabetes Care. 2004;27:155–161. [PubMed]
78. Nicklas BJ, Ambrosius W, Messier SP, et al. Diet-induced weight loss, exercise, and chronic inflammation in older, obese adults: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Am J Clin Nutr. 2004;79:544–551. [PubMed]
79. Thabane L, Chu R, Cuddy K, Douketis J. What is the quality of reporting in weight loss intervention studies? A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Int J Obes. 2007;31:1554–1559. [PubMed]
80. Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D, Egger M, Davidoff F, Elbourne D, et al. for the CONSORT Group. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2001;134:663–694. [PubMed]
81. Consolidated Standards of Reporting. CONSORT: Transparent reporting of trials. CONSORT: Transparent reporting of trials. 2008. www.consort-statement.org.
82. Huwiler-Müntener K, Jüni P, Junker C, Egger M. Quality of reporting of randomized trials as a measure of methodologic quality. JAMA. 2002;278:2801–2804. [PubMed]
83. Olivo SA, Macedo LG, Gadotti IC, Fuentes J, Stanton T, Magee DJ. Scales to assess the quality of randomized controlled trials: A systematic review. Phys Ther. 2008;88:1–20. [PubMed]
84. Hanley JA, Negassa A, Edwardes MD, Forrester JE. Statistical analysis of correlated data using generalized estimating equations: An orientation. Am J Epidemiol. 2003;157:364–375. [PubMed]