Emotional Eating Interventions for Adults Living with Overweight or Obesity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Emotional eating (EE) may be defined as a tendency to eat in response to negative emotions and energy-dense and palatable foods, and is common amongst adults with overweight or obesity. There is limited evidence regarding the effectiveness of interventions that address EE.

OBJECTIVES

To synthesize evidence on the effectiveness of EE interventions for weight loss and EE in adults living with overweight or obesity.

METHODS

This is a systematic review and meta-analysis. Adhering to the PRISMA guidance, a comprehensive electronic search was completed up to February 2022. Random effects meta-analysis was carried out to determine the percentage change in weight and EE scores.

RESULTS

Thirty-four studies were included. The combined effect size for percentage weight change was -1.08% (95% CI: -1.66 to -0.49, I² = 64.65%, n = 37), once adjusted for publication bias. Similarly, the combined effect size for percentage change in EE was -2.37%, (95% CI: -3.76 to -0.99, I² = 87.77%, n = 46). Cognitive Behavioural Therapy showed the most promise for reducing weight and improving EE.

CONCLUSIONS

Interventions to address EE showed promise in reducing EE and promoted a small amount of weight loss in adults living with overweight or obesity.

Selecting and implementing overview methods: implications from five exemplar overviews

BACKGROUND

Overviews of systematic reviews are an increasingly popular method of evidence synthesis; there is a lack of clear guidance for completing overviews and a number of methodological challenges. At the UK Cochrane Symposium 2016, methodological challenges of five overviews were explored. Using data from these five overviews, practical implications to support methodological decision making of authors writing protocols for future overviews are proposed.

METHODS

Methods, and their justification, from the five exemplar overviews were tabulated and compared with areas of debate identified within current literature. Key methodological challenges and implications for development of overview protocols were generated and synthesised into a list, discussed and refined until there was consensus.

RESULTS

Methodological features of three Cochrane overviews, one overview of diagnostic test accuracy and one mixed methods overview have been summarised. Methods of selection of reviews and data extraction were similar. Either the AMSTAR or ROBIS tool was used to assess quality of included reviews. The GRADE approach was most commonly used to assess quality of evidence within the reviews. Eight key methodological challenges were identified from the exemplar overviews. There was good agreement between our findings and emerging areas of debate within a recent published synthesis. Implications for development of protocols for future overviews were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Overviews are a relatively new methodological innovation, and there are currently substantial variations in the methodological approaches used within different overviews. There are considerable methodological challenges for which optimal solutions are not necessarily yet known. Lessons learnt from five exemplar overviews highlight a number of methodological decisions which may be beneficial to consider during the development of an overview protocol.

Risk of bias in overviews of reviews: a scoping review of methodological guidance and four-item checklist

OBJECTIVE

To assess the conditions under which employing an overview of systematic reviews is likely to lead to a high risk of bias.

STUDY DESIGN

To synthesise existing guidance concerning overview practice, a scoping review was conducted. Four electronic databases were searched with a pre-specified strategy (PROSPERO 2015:CRD42015027592) ending October 2015. Included studies needed to describe or develop overview methodology. Data were narratively synthesised to delineate areas highlighted as outstanding challenges or where methodological recommendations conflict.

RESULTS

Twenty-four papers met the inclusion criteria. There is emerging debate regarding overlapping systematic reviews; systematic review scope; quality of included research; updating; and synthesizing and reporting results. While three functions for overviews have been proposed-identify gaps, explore heterogeneity, summarize evidence-overviews cannot perform the first; are unlikely to achieve the second and third simultaneously; and can only perform the third under specific circumstances. Namely, when identified systematic reviews meet the following four conditions: (1) include primary trials that do not substantially overlap, (2) match overview scope, (3) are of high methodological quality, and (4) are up-to-date.

CONCLUSION

Considering the intended function of proposed overviews with the corresponding methodological conditions may improve the quality of this burgeoning publication type. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

This article describes the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines that are intended to help authors improve the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, illustrating with examples from the Oncology Nursing Society journals and Putting Evidence Into Practice resources.