Skip to content

Digital weight-management programmes favored waist measurements, with other benefits uncertain

Pooled trials in adults with overweight or obesity found smaller waist measurements with digital interventions. Other measured outcomes showed no statistically significant differences.

By 100HP editorialAbstract-based explanation checked

Based on the published abstract. The full paper may contain additional methods, results and limitations.

The 30-second takeaway

In adults with overweight or obesity, pooled randomized trials favored digital programmes for waist circumference. Differences in weight, body mass index, body fat, physical activity and eating behavior were not statistically significant. These results leave other benefits uncertain. Substantial variation between studies and concerns about study quality also limit confidence in the waist finding.

Keep in mind

Most outcomes varied substantially between studies, and quality assessments commonly identified concerns or high risk of bias. This abstract-based explanation cannot clarify the control conditions or assessment timing.

THE RESULT, WITH CONTEXT

What researchers found

Lower waist circumference

Digital interventions versus controls

Pooled weighted mean difference: -1.77 cm (95% CI -3.10 to -0.44). Assessment timing was not reported in the abstract.

Nutrients, 2025 · Original source ↓

Understanding the waist estimate

The weighted mean difference summarizes the average difference in waist measurement between groups across trials. Its confidence interval describes uncertainty around that estimate. It does not show how every participant responded.

Different programmes were pooled

The review included apps, online coaching, websites, biofeedback devices and mixed approaches. The pooled waist result cannot identify which component worked best. Nonsignificant results for other outcomes do not prove that those interventions had no effects.

CHECK THE ORIGINAL

The original publication

E-Health and M-Health in Obesity Management: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of RCTs.

Chiavarini M, Giacchetta I, Rosignoli P et al.
Nutrients · 2025

PubMed ID
40647304
Record checked

AI-assisted research and writing. This explains one selected publication; it is not a complete review of everything known. Our approach.