Premium
A Systematic Review of Dietary Supplements and Alternative Therapies for Weight Loss
Author(s) -
Batsis John A.,
Apolzan John W.,
Bagley Pamela J.,
Blunt Heather B.,
Divan Vidita,
Gill Sonia,
Golden Angela,
Gundumraj Shalini,
Heymsfield Steven B.,
Kahan Scott,
Kopatsis Katherine,
Port Ava,
Parks Elizabeth Prout,
Reilly Clifford A.,
Rubino Domenica,
Saunders Katherine H.,
Shean Ryan,
Tabaza Luai,
Stanley Abishek,
Tchang Beverly G.,
Gundumraj Shivani,
Kidambi Srividya
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
obesity
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.438
H-Index - 199
eISSN - 1930-739X
pISSN - 1930-7381
DOI - 10.1002/oby.23110
Subject(s) - medicine , cochrane library , weight loss , cinahl , medline , systematic review , randomized controlled trial , alternative medicine , guideline , web of science , dietary supplement , obesity , intensive care medicine , meta analysis , psychological intervention , food science , psychiatry , pathology , political science , law , chemistry
Objective Dietary supplements and alternative therapies are commercialized as a panacea for obesity/weight gain as a result of the minimal regulatory requirements in demonstrating efficacy. These products may indirectly undermine the value of guideline‐driven obesity treatments. Included in this study is a systematic review of the literature of purported dietary supplements and alternative therapies for weight loss. Methods A systematic review was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of dietary supplements and alternative therapies for weight loss in participants aged ≥18 years. Searches of Medline (PubMed), Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Embase (Ovid) were conducted. Risk of bias and results were summarized qualitatively. Results Of the 20,504 citations retrieved in the database search, 1,743 full‐text articles were reviewed, 315 of which were randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of 14 purported dietary supplements, therapies, or a combination thereof. Risk of bias and sufficiency of data varied widely. Few studies ( n = 52 [16.5%]) were classified as low risk and sufficient to support efficacy. Of these, only 16 (31%) noted significant pre/post intergroup differences in weight (range: 0.3‐4.93 kg). Conclusions Dietary supplements and alternative therapies for weight loss have a limited high‐quality evidence base of efficacy. Practitioners and patients should be aware of the scientific evidence of claims before recommending use.