Childhood obesity intervention studies: A narrative review and guide for investigators, authors, editors, reviewers, journalists, and readers to guard against exaggerated effectiveness claims

Abstract

Being able to draw accurate conclusions from childhood obesity trials is important to make advances in reversing the obesity epidemic. However, obesity research sometimes is not conducted or reported to appropriate scientific standards. To constructively draw attention to this issue, we present 10 errors that are commonly committed, illustrate each error with examples from the childhood obesity literature, and follow with suggestions on how to avoid these errors. These errors are as follows: using self‐reported outcomes and teaching to the test; foregoing control groups and risking regression to the mean creating differences over time; changing the goal posts; ignoring clustering in studies that randomize groups of children; following the forking paths, subsetting, p‐hacking, and data dredging; basing conclusions on tests for significant differences from baseline; equating “no statistically significant difference” with “equally effective”; ignoring intervention study results in favor of observational analyses; using one‐sided testing for statistical significance; and stating that effects are clinically significant even though they are not statistically significant. We hope that compiling these errors in one article will serve as the beginning of a checklist to support fidelity in conducting, analyzing, and reporting childhood obesity research.

Document Details

Document Type
Pub Defense Publication
Publication Date
Aug 19, 2019
Source ID
10.1111/obr.12923

Entities

People

  • Andrew Gelman
  • Andrew W. Brown
  • David B. Allison
  • Diana M. Thomas
  • Douglas G. Altman
  • Eric Loken
  • J. Martin Bland
  • J. Michael Oakes
  • John A. Dawson
  • June Stevens
  • Kevin Fontaine
  • Nikhil V. Dhurandhar
  • Scott W. Keith
  • Shima Dowla
  • Steven B Heymsfield
  • Theodore K Kyle
  • Tom Baranowski
  • Wasantha Jayawardene

Organizations

  • Baylor College of Medicine
  • Columbia University
  • Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
  • Indiana University
  • Louisiana State University
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases
  • Texas Tech University
  • Thomas Jefferson University
  • University of Alabama at Birmingham
  • University of Connecticut
  • University of Minnesota
  • University of North Carolina
  • University of Oxford
  • University of York

Tags

Fields of Study

  • Medicine

Readers

  • Mental Health of Military Veterans with Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD): Risk Factors, Prevalence, Symptoms, and Treatment.
  • Regression Analysis.
  • Systems Analysis and Design