↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Interventions for treating obesity in children

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2003
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 (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

1 blog
2 policy sources
1 tweeter


404 Dimensions

Readers on

214 Mendeley
Interventions for treating obesity in children
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2003
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001872
Pubmed ID

Summerbell, CD, Ashton, V, Campbell, KJ, Edmunds, L, Kelly, S, Waters, E, Summerbell, C D, Campbell, K J


The prevalence of overweight and obesity is increasing in child populations throughout the world. Obesity in children has significant short and long term health consequences. To assess the effects of a range of lifestyle interventions designed to treat obesity in childhood. We searched CCTR, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychLIT, Science Citation Index, Social Science Citation Index. Each database was searched from 1985 to July 2001. We also contacted experts in child obesity treatment. We selected randomised controlled trials of lifestyle interventions for treating obesity in children with a minimum of six months duration. Examples of lifestyle interventions include dietary, physical activity and/or behavioural therapy interventions, with or without the support of associated family members. Interventions from any setting and delivered by any professional were considered. However, interventions that specifically dealt with the treatment of eating disorders were excluded. Two of our research team independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Authors of the included studies were contacted for additional information where this was appropriate. We included 18 randomised controlled trials with 975 participants. Many studies were run from a specialist obesity clinic within a hospital setting. Five studies (n=245 participants) investigated changes in physical activity and sedentary behaviour. Two studies (n=107 participants) compared problem-solving with usual care or behavioural therapy. Nine studies (n=399 participants) compared behavioural therapy at varying degrees of family involvement with no treatment or usual care or mastery criteria and contingent reinforcement. Two studies (n=224 participants) compared cognitive behavioural therapy with relaxation.Most of the studies included in this review were too small to have the power to detect the effects of the treatment. We did not conduct a meta-analysis since so few of the trials included the same comparisons and outcomes. Therefore, we synthesised the results in a narrative format. Although 18 research studies were found, most of these were very small studies drawn from homogenous, motivated groups in hospital settings and so generalisable evidence from them is limited. In conclusion, there is a limited amount of quality data on the components of programs to treat childhood obesity that favour one program over another. Further research that considers psychosocial determinants for behaviour change, strategies to improve clinician-family interaction, and cost-effective programs for primary and community care is required. We conclude that no direct conclusions can be drawn from this review with confidence.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 214 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Nepal 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 205 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 59 28%
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 14%
Student > Bachelor 24 11%
Researcher 23 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 8%
Other 34 16%
Unknown 27 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 68 32%
Psychology 26 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 9%
Sports and Recreations 17 8%
Social Sciences 16 7%
Other 32 15%
Unknown 35 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 05 July 2018.
All research outputs
of 23,613,071 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 12,749 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 49,638 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,613,071 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,749 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 49,638 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.