SemOpenAlex |

SemOpenAlex

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1572485915> ?p ?o ?g. }

Showing items 1 to 100 of ±260 with 100 items per page.

W1572485915 endingPage "S39" @default.
W1572485915 startingPage "S5" @default.
W1572485915 abstract "In 2008, the NHLBI initiated these guidelines by sponsoring rigorous systematic evidence reviews for each topic by expert panels convened to develop critical questions (CQs), interpret the evidence, and craft recommendations. In response to the 2011 report from the Institute of Medicine on the development of trustworthy clinical guidelines (1), the NHLBI Advisory Council recommended that the NHLBI focus specifically on reviewing the highest-quality evidence and partner with other organizations to develop recommendations (2, 3). Accordingly, in June 2013 the NHLBI initiated collaboration with the ACC and AHA to work with other organizations to complete and publish the guidelines noted above and make them available to the widest possible constituency. Recognizing that the expert panels/work groups did not consider evidence beyond 2011 (except as specified in the methodology), the ACC, AHA and collaborating societies plan to begin updating these guidelines starting in 2014. The joint ACC/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Task Force) appointed a subcommittee to shepherd this transition, communicate the rationale and expectations to the writing panels and partnering organizations, and expeditiously publish the documents. The ACC/AHA and partner organizations recruited a limited number of expert reviewers for fiduciary examination of content, recognizing that each document had undergone extensive peer review by representatives of the NHLBI Advisory Council, key federal agencies, and scientific experts. Each writing panel responded to comments from these reviewers. Clarifications were incorporated where appropriate, but there were no substantive changes because the bulk of the content was undisputed. Although the Task Force led the final development of these prevention guidelines, they differ from other ACC/AHA guidelines. First, as opposed to an extensive compendium of clinical information, these documents are significantly more limited in scope and focus on selected CQs on each topic based on the highest-quality evidence available. Recommendations were derived from randomized trials, meta-analyses, and observational studies evaluated for quality and were not formulated when sufficient evidence was not available. Second, the text accompanying each recommendation is succinct, summarizing the evidence for each question. The Expert Panel Reports (Part 3) include more detailed information about the Evidence Statements (ESs) that serve as the basis for recommendations. Third, the format of the recommendations differs from other ACC/AHA guidelines. Each recommendation has been mapped from the NHLBI grading format to the ACC/AHA Classification of Recommendation/Level of Evidence (COR/LOE) construct (Table 1) and is expressed in both formats. Because of the inherent differences in grading systems and the clinical questions driving the recommendations, alignment between the NHLBI and ACC/AHA formats is in some cases imperfect. Explanations of these variations are noted in the recommendation tables, where applicable. There is high certainty based on evidence that the net benefity is substantial. There is moderate certainty based on evidence that the net benefitis moderate to substantial, or there is high certainty that the net benefit is moderate. There is at least moderate certainty based on evidence that there is a small net benefit. There is at least moderate certainty based on evidence that there is no net benefit or that risks/harms outweigh benefits. Net benefit is unclear. Balance of benefits and harms cannot be determined because of no evidence, insufficient evidence, unclear evidence, or conflicting evidence, but the Work Group thought it was important to provide clinical guidance and make a recommendation. Further research is recommended in this area. Net benefit is unclear. Balance of benefits and harms cannot be determined because of no evidence, insufficient evidence, unclear evidence, or conflicting evidence, and the Work Group thought no recommendation should be made. Further research is recommended in this area. In consultation with NHLBI, the policies adopted by the writing panels to manage relationships of authors with industry and other entities (RWI) are outlined in the methods section of each panel report. These policies were in effect when this effort began in 2008 and throughout the writing process and voting on recommendations, until the process was transferred to ACC/AHA in 2013. In the interest of transparency, the ACC/AHA requested that panel authors resubmit RWI disclosures as of July 2013. Relationships relevant to this guideline are disclosed in Appendix 1 . None of the ACC/AHA expert reviewers had relevant RWI (Appendix 2). See Appendix 3 for a list of abbreviations. Systematic evidence reports and accompanying summary tables were developed by the expert panels and NHLBI. The guideline was reviewed by the ACC/AHA Task Force and approved by the ACC Board of Trustees, the AHA Science Advisory and Coordinating Committee and The Obesity Society. In addition, ACC/AHA sought endorsement from other stakeholders, including professional organizations. It is the hope of the writing panels, stakeholders, professional organizations, NHLBI, and Task Force that the guidelines will garner the widest possible readership for the benefit of patients, providers, and the public health. See Tables 2 and 3 for an explanation of the NHLBI recommendation grading methodology. Meta-analyses of such studies. Highly certain about the estimate of effect. Further research is unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Meta-analyses of such studies. Moderately certain about the estimate of effect. Further research may have an impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Meta-analyses of such studies. Low certainty about the estimate of effect. Further research is likely to have an impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. More than 78 million adults in the United States were obese in 2009 and 2010 (4). Obesity raises the risk of morbidity from hypertension, dyslipidemia, type 2 diabetes mellitus (diabetes), coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, gallbladder disease, osteoarthritis, sleep apnea and respiratory problems, and some cancers. Obesity is also associated with increased risk of all-cause and CVD mortality. The biomedical, psychosocial, and economic consequences of obesity have substantial implications for the health and well-being of the U.S. population. According to the 1998 “Clinical Guidelines on the Identification, Evaluation, and Treatment of Overweight and Obesity in Adults—The Evidence Report” (5), overweight is defined as a body mass index (BMI) of 25 kg/m2 to 29.9 kg/m2 and obesity as a BMI of >30 kg/m2. Current estimates are that 69% of adults are either overweight or obese, with approximately 35% obese (6). These latest data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys indicate that for both men and women, obesity estimates for 2009 and 2010 did not differ significantly from estimates for 2003 to 2008 and that increases in the prevalence rates of obesity appear to be slowing down or leveling off (6). Nevertheless, overweight and obesity continue to be highly prevalent, especially in some racial and ethnic minority groups, as well as in those with lower incomes and less education. Overweight and obesity are major contributors to chronic diseases in the United States and present a major public health challenge. Compared with normal-weight individuals, obese patients incur 46% higher inpatient costs, 27% more physician visits and outpatient costs, and 80% higher spending on prescription drugs (7). The medical care costs of obesity in the United States are staggering. In 2008 dollars, these costs totaled about $147 billion (7). The Expert Panel was first convened in September 2008 by the NHLBI in cooperation with the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases to update the 1998 Clinical Guidelines Report (5). The Expert Panel considered new evidence related to key issues on overweight and obesity evaluation and treatment, particularly in individuals with other risk factors for CVD and diabetes. The key issues identified included the appropriateness of the current BMI and waist circumference cutpoints that are used for determining risk in overweight and obese adults across diverse populations; the impact of weight loss on risk factors for CVD and type 2 diabetes, as well as CVD morbidity and mortality; optimal behavioral, dietary intervention and other lifestyle treatment approaches for weight loss and weight loss maintenance; and benefits and risks of various bariatric surgical procedures. The Expert Panel's ultimate goal was to systematically develop ESs and recommendations for 5 CQs to assist clinicians in primary care. The recommendations are based on evidence from a rigorous systematic review and synthesis of recently published medical literature. This guideline is based on the Expert Panel Report (Part 3). The Expert Panel Report contains background and additional material related to content, methodology, evidence synthesis, rationale, and references and is supported by the NHLBI Systematic Evidence Review, which can be found at http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/obesity/ser/. Refer to the “2013 ACC/AHA Guideline on the Treatment of Blood Cholesterol to Reduce Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Risk in Adults,” “2013 AHA/ACC Guideline on Lifestyle Management to Reduce Cardiovascular Risk,” and “2013 ACC/AHA Guideline on the Assessment of Cardiovascular Risk” (8-10) for topics outside the scope of the 2013 AHA/ACC/TOS Obesity Guideline. The NHLBI, in cooperation with the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, released the 1998 “Clinical Guidelines on the Identification, Evaluation, and Treatment of Overweight and Obesity in Adults—The Evidence Report” (11) as a systematic review of the published scientific literature found in MEDLINE from January 1980 to September 1997 on important topics reviewed by the Expert Panel. The published literature was evaluated to determine appropriate treatment strategies that would constitute evidence-based clinical guidelines on overweight and obesity. The San Antonio Cochrane Center assisted in literature abstraction and in organizing the data into evidence tables, and a methodology consultant worked with the Expert Panel to develop ESs and recommendations. In 2005, the NHLBI initiated the process to update the overweight/obesity guidelines and convened stakeholder groups to provide input on what should be the next-generation guideline development process. The resulting recommendations were used to design the process. To continually improve the quality and impact of the guidelines, the process was updated to assure rigor and minimize bias through the use of strict, evidence-based methodologies to guide the development of ESs and recommendations based on a systematic review of the biomedical literature for a specific period of time. The Expert Panel began its deliberations by developing 23 possible CQs, and after considerable discussion, narrowed the possibilities to 5 targeted CQs. Questions were chosen to aid primary care practitioners (PCPs) and providers who frequently work with obese patients to identify patients at health risk of weight-related comorbidities and to update them on the benefits and risks of weight loss achieved by various approaches. Examples of CQs that were not included for this review included consideration of genetics of obesity, binge-eating disorders, pharmacotherapy, and cost-effectiveness of interventions to manage obesity. For each of the chosen CQs, Expert Panel members reviewed the final list of included and excluded articles, along with the quality ratings, and had the opportunity to raise questions and appeal the ratings to the methodology team. The team then reexamined these articles and presented their rationale for either keeping or changing the quality rating of the articles. Expert Panel members also played a key role in examining the evidence tables and summary tables to be certain the data from each article were accurately displayed. CQ1 and CQ2 were chosen to help providers determine the appropriate criteria to guide a weight loss recommendation. CQ1 addresses the expected health benefits of weight loss as a function of the amount and duration of weight loss. CQ2 addresses the health risks of overweight and obesity and seeks to determine if the current waist circumference cutpoints and the widely accepted BMI cutpoints defining persons as overweight (BMI 25-29.9 kg/m2) and obese (BMI >30 kg/m2) are appropriate for population subgroups. Because patients are interested in popular diets that are promoted for weight loss and see the PCP as an authoritative source of information, CQ3 asks which dietary intervention strategies are effective for weight loss efforts. CQ4 seeks to determine the efficacy and effectiveness of a comprehensive lifestyle approach (diet, physical activity, and behavior therapy) to achieve and maintain weight loss. CQ5 seeks to determine the efficacy and safety of bariatric surgical procedures, including benefits and risks. CQ5 also seeks to determine patient and procedural factors that may help guide decisions to enhance the likelihood of maximum benefit from surgery for obesity and related conditions. In 2007, the NHLBI sought nominations for panel membership that would ensure adequate representation of key specialties and appropriate expertise. The NHLBI staff reviewed the nominees and selected potential chairs and co-chairs for the panels. A Guidelines Executive Committee was formed, consisting of the chairs from each of the 3 panels (obesity, high blood pressure [BP], and high blood cholesterol) and 3 cross-cutting working groups (lifestyle, risk assessment, and implementation). This committee worked with the NHLBI to select panel members from the list of nominees. The Obesity Expert Panel comprised 15 members and 3 ex-officio members, including individuals with specific expertise in psychology, nutrition, physical activity,bariatric surgery, epidemiology, internal medicine, and other clinical specialties. The full Obesity Expert Panel met 23 times throughout the years (5 times face-to-face and 18 times via Webinar). Expert Panel chairs asked all members to disclose any conflicts of interest to the full Expert Panel in advance of the deliberations; members with conflicts were asked to recuse themselves from voting on any aspect of the guideline for which a conflict might exist. Each of the 5 CQs had working groups consisting of a leader and various Expert Panel members who met via conference calls to discuss all aspects of the CQ; to review the list of included and excluded articles along with the quality ratings; to review the evidence tables and summary tables; and to develop spreadsheets, ESs, resulting recommendations, and research/evidence gaps. Expert Panel members had the opportunity to raise questions about the included and excluded articles, submit additional articles that were not identified in the original search,appealthequalityratings on articles, and question articles that were excluded. Each working group presented their findings to the full Expert Panel for all final decisions on ESs and recommendations, including the strength of the evidence. A formal peer review process was initially completed under the auspices of the NHLBI and included 10 expert reviewers and representatives from multiple federal agencies. This document was also reviewed by 6 expert reviewers nominated by the ACC, AHA, and The Obesity Society after the management ofthe guideline transitioned to the ACC/AHA. The ACC, AHA, and The Obesity Society reviewers' RWI information is published in this document (Appendix 2). This document was approved for publication by the governing bodies ofthe ACC, the AHA, and The Obesity Society and is endorsed by the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation, American Pharmacists Association, American Society for Nutrition, American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, American Society for Preventive Cardiology, American Society of Hypertension, Association of Black Cardiologists, National Lipid Association, Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association, The Endocrine Society, and WomenHeart: The National Coalition for Women With Heart Disease. The recommendations in Table 4 serve as a guide for PCPs in making evaluations and treatment decisions for overweight and obese patients. The CQs answered by evidence-based recommendations summarize current literature on the risks of overweight and obesity and the benefits of weight loss. They also summarize knowledge on the best diets for weight loss, the efficacy and effectiveness of comprehensive lifestyle interventions on weight loss and weight loss maintenance, and the benefits and risks of bariatric surgery. This information will help PCPs decide who should be recommended for weight loss and what health improvements can be expected. The Expert Panel did not choose a CQ that dealt with various aspects of pharmacotherapy for a comprehensive evidence assessment, because at the time the CQs were chosen there was only one approved medication (orlistat) for weight loss. However, CQ1 includes some ESs on the efficacy of orlistat because the effect of pharmacotherapy on weight loss was included in its evidence review. The Expert Panel provides a treatment algorithm, Chronic Disease Management Model for Primary Care of Patients With Overweight and Obesity (Figure), to guide PCPs in the evaluation, prevention, and management of excess body weight in their patients. The algorithm incorporates, wherever possible, the recommendations derived from the 5 CQs that yielded ESs and recommendations. However, because the 5 CQs that were considered did not cover the entire scope of evaluation, prevention, and management of overweight/ obesity, the panelists provided advice based on other guidelines and expert opinion to give providers a more comprehensive approach to their patients with weight-related issues. Treatment Algorithm—Chronic Disease Management Model for Primary Care of Patients With Overweight and Obesity* *This algorithm applies to the assessment of overweight and obesity and subsequent decisions based on that assessment. Each step (designated by a box) in this process is reviewed in Section 2.2 and expanded on in subsequent sections. †BMI cutpoint determined by the FDA and listed on the package inserts ofFDA-approved obesity medications. BMI indicates body mass index; CVD, cardiovascular disease; and FDA, U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The algorithm is not intended to supplant initial assessment for cardiovascular risk factors or diseases but rather focuses on the identification of patients with excess body weight and those at risk for obesity-related health problems. Its purpose is to guide weight management decision making. The algorithm incorporates the recommendations from CQ3 and CQ4 that patients who have sufficient health risk from overweight or obesity receive comprehensive lifestyle intervention. These approaches were all found effective under conditions in which multidisciplinary teams of medical, nutrition, and behavioral experts and other highly trained professionals worked intensively with individuals on weight management. This intervention should be foundational to additional weight management efforts, such as medications or bariatric surgery. It also emphasizes a fundamental principle of chronic disease management—that is, the need to complement a committed patient with informed providers to effectively manage a chronic condition like obesity and its associated cardiovascular risk factors. A patient encounter for obesity prevention and management is defined as an interaction with a PCP who assesses a patient's weight status to determine presence of overweight or obesity and need for further assessment and treatment. With the patient wearing light clothing or an examination gown and no shoes, weight and height are measured and the BMI calculated. BMI can be calculated manually (weight in kg/[height in meters]2) or electronically by using the electronic medical record or other resources. The BMI should be documented in the patient medical record. These BMI cutpoints define overweight and class I to III obese individuals and identify adults who may be at increased risk for CVD and other obesity-related conditions. Within these categories, additional personal risk assessment is needed because degree of risk can vary (Box 4 and CQ2). Assess risk of CVD and/or presence of obesity-related comorbidities. Risk assessment for CVD and diabetes in a person with overweight or class I to III obesity includes history; physical examination; and clinical and laboratory assessments, including BP, fasting blood glucose, and fasting lipid panel (expert opinion). A waist circumference measurement is recommended for individuals with BMI 25-34.9 kg/m2 to provide additional information on risk. It is unnecessary to measure waist circumference in patients with BMI >35 kg/m2 because the waist circumference will likely be elevated and will add no additional risk information. The Expert Panel recommends, by expert opinion, using the current cutpoints (>88 cm [>35 in] for women and >102 cm [>40in] for men) as indicative of increased cardiometabolic risk. Because obesity is associated with increased risk of hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes, and a host of other comorbidities, the clinician should assess for associated conditions. The Expert Panel recommends, by expert opinion, that intensive management of cardiovascular risk factors (hypertension, dyslipidemia, prediabetes, or diabetes) or other obesity-related medical conditions (e.g., sleep apnea) be instituted if they are found, regardless of weight loss efforts. The Expert Panel recommends, by expert opinion, that the clinician assess weight and lifestyle histories and determine other potential contributory factors: Ask questions about history of weight gain and loss over time, details of previous weight loss attempts, dietary habits, physical activity, family history of obesity, and other medical conditions or medications that may affect weight. Answers to these questions may provide useful information about the origins of or maintaining factors for overweight and obesity, including success and difficulties with previous weight loss or maintenance efforts. This information can help the clinician determine any adjustments to the patient's medical regimen that can assist weight management efforts and provide appropriate advice on lifestyle change. The information may also impact recommendations for treatment. Weight loss treatment is indicated for 1) obese individuals and 2) overweight individuals with >1 indicators of increased cardiovascular risk (e.g., diabetes, prediabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, elevated waist circumference) or other obesity-related comorbidities. NO: BMI <25 or BMI 25-29.9 without additional risk. Normal-weight patients (BMI 18.5-24.9 kg/m2) should be advised to avoid weight gain (Box 7). Patients who are overweight (BMI 25-29.9 kg/m2) who do not have indicators of increased cardiovascular risk (e.g., diabetes, prediabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, elevated waist circumference) or other obesity-related comorbidities should be advised to avoid additional weight gain (Box 7). Normal weight: Individuals who are normal weight (BMI 18.5-24.9 kg/m2) and do not have a history of overweight or obesity should be counseled on the desirability of avoiding weight gain to prevent the health risks of increased body weight. B. Overweight without additional risk factors or normal weight with a history of overweight or obesity: For individuals who are overweight (BMI 25-29.9kg/m2) and who do not have indicators of increased cardiovascular risk (e.g., diabetes, prediabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, elevated waist circumference) or other obesity-related comorbidities, and for individuals who have a history of overweight and are now normal weight with risk factors at acceptable levels, advise patients to frequently measure their own weight and to avoid weight gain by adjusting their food intake if they start to gain more than a few pounds. Also, advise patients that engaging in regular physical activity will help them avoid weight gain. C. Overweight or obese individuals who would benefit from weight loss but who are not currently prepared or able to lose weight: Periodically assess the patient's interest in and readiness for weight loss as shown in Box 8, and counsel the patient on the desirability of avoiding additional weight gain to prevent greater health risk. Regardless of patient's interest in or readiness for weight loss intervention, any cardiovascular risk factors and obesity-related health conditions should be evaluated and treated. The Expert Panel advises (expert opinion) that the clinician and patient agree on whether weight loss is appropriate. The clinician, together with the patient, should assess whether the patient is prepared and ready to undertake the measures necessary to succeed at weight loss before beginning comprehensive counseling efforts. The clinician can ask, “How prepared are you to make changes in your diet, to be more physically active, and to use behavior change strategies such as recording your weight and food intake?” These are the components of a comprehensive lifestyle intervention. The decision to undertake weight loss efforts must be made in the context of competing priorities (e.g., smoking cessation may supersede a weight loss effort; life events may make the effort at weight reduction futile until a future time). If the patient is not prepared to undertake these changes, attempts to counsel the patient on how to make lifestyle changes are likely to be counterproductive. Clinician and patient devise weight loss and health goals and comprehensive lifestyle treatment strategies to achieve these goals. Recommended goals for weight loss: A realistic and meaningful weight loss goal is an important first step. Although sustained weight loss of as little as 3%-5% of body weight may lead to clinically meaningful reductions in some cardiovascular risk factors, larger weight losses produce greater benefits. The Expert Panel recommends as an initial goal the loss of 5%-10% of baseline weight within 6 months. Recommended methods for weight loss: Weight loss requires creating an energy deficit through caloric restriction, physical activity, or both. An energy deficit of >500 kcal/d typically may be achieved with dietary intake of 1,200-1,500 kcal/d for women and 1,500-1,800 kcal/d for men. The choice of calorie-restricted diet can be individualized to the patient's preferences and health status (CQ3). Very-low-calorie diets (<800 kcal/d) should be used only in limited circumstances in a medical care setting where medical supervision and a high-intensity lifestyle intervention can be provided. If a specialized diet for CVD risk reduction, diabetes, or other medical conditions is also prescribed, referral to a nutrition professional* is recommended (CQ3). Recommendations for management of medical conditions during weight loss: While weight loss treatment is ongoing, manage risk factors such as hypertension, dyslipidemia, and other obesity-related conditions. This includes monitoring the patient's requirements for medication change as weight loss progresses, particularly for antihypertensive medications and diabetes medications that can cause hypoglycemia. All patients for whom weight loss is recommended should be offered or referred for comprehensive lifestyle intervention (Box 11 and 12). Comprehensive lifestyle intervention, preferably with a trained interventionist† or nutrition professional*, is foundational to weight loss (Box 11) regardless of augmentation by medications or bariatric surgery. By expert opinion, if the weight and lifestyle history indicates that the patient has never participated in a comprehensive lifestyle intervention program as defined in CQ4 and in Box 11, it is recommended that he or she be encouraged to undertake such a program before the addition of adjunctive therapies since a substantial proportion of patients will lose sufficient weight to improve health with comprehensive lifestyle treatment alone. This recommendation may be modified by the availability of comprehensive lifestyle intervention or by patient factors, such as medical conditions that warrant earlier initiation of more intensive treatment. If the patient has been unable to lose weight or sustain weight loss with comprehensive lifestyle intervention and he or she has a BMI >30 kg/m2 or BMI >27 kg/m2 with comorbidity, adjunctive therapies may be considered. Patients who are otherwise appropriate candidates for obesity drug treatment or bariatric surgery, whose weight and lifestyle history indicate a history of inability to achieve or sustain weight loss and who have previously participated in a comprehensive lifestyle intervention, may be offered the option to add pharmacotherapy at the time of initiation of a lifestyle intervention program (BMI >30 kg/m2 or BMI >27 kg/m2 with comorbidity) or to be referred for evaluation for bariatric surgery (BMI >40kg/m2 or BMI >3 5 kg/m2 with comorbidity) (expert opinion).‡ The most effective behavioral weight loss treatment is an in-person, high-intensity (i.e., >14 sessions in 6 months) comprehensive weight loss intervention provided in individual or group sessions by a trained interventionist† (CQ4). The principal components of an effective high-intensity, on-site comprehensive lifestyle intervention include 1) prescription of a moderately redu" @default.
W1572485915 created "2016-06-24" @default.
W1572485915 creator A5002850016 @default.
W1572485915 creator A5004876955 @default.
W1572485915 creator A5006742583 @default.
W1572485915 creator A5012904222 @default.
W1572485915 creator A5013023617 @default.
W1572485915 creator A5020157582 @default.
W1572485915 creator A5022112585 @default.
W1572485915 creator A5026596594 @default.
W1572485915 creator A5041018266 @default.
W1572485915 creator A5043954939 @default.
W1572485915 creator A5045643047 @default.
W1572485915 creator A5056459536 @default.
W1572485915 creator A5062192624 @default.
W1572485915 creator A5064027496 @default.
W1572485915 creator A5069582965 @default.
W1572485915 creator A5079020015 @default.
W1572485915 creator A5083528644 @default.
W1572485915 creator A5088283488 @default.
W1572485915 creator A5088777870 @default.
W1572485915 date "2014-06-24" @default.
W1572485915 modified "2023-10-16" @default.
W1572485915 title "Executive summary: Guidelines (2013) for the management of overweight and obesity in adults" @default.
W1572485915 cites W1492747692 @default.
W1572485915 cites W1511593276 @default.
W1572485915 cites W1542476404 @default.
W1572485915 cites W1554005703 @default.
W1572485915 cites W1558000543 @default.
W1572485915 cites W1569445538 @default.
W1572485915 cites W1705513177 @default.
W1572485915 cites W170708439 @default.
W1572485915 cites W1850487410 @default.
W1572485915 cites W1896734186 @default.
W1572485915 cites W1944915251 @default.
W1572485915 cites W1966266926 @default.
W1572485915 cites W1966833045 @default.
W1572485915 cites W1967237278 @default.
W1572485915 cites W1967600164 @default.
W1572485915 cites W1968668793 @default.
W1572485915 cites W1970719989 @default.
W1572485915 cites W1971832705 @default.
W1572485915 cites W1972956097 @default.
W1572485915 cites W1973371137 @default.
W1572485915 cites W1978206821 @default.
W1572485915 cites W1978585499 @default.
W1572485915 cites W1979552248 @default.
W1572485915 cites W1979764360 @default.
W1572485915 cites W1981412126 @default.
W1572485915 cites W1982031528 @default.
W1572485915 cites W1986183494 @default.
W1572485915 cites W1988618355 @default.
W1572485915 cites W1992770268 @default.
W1572485915 cites W1993800499 @default.
W1572485915 cites W1993959691 @default.
W1572485915 cites W1994803571 @default.
W1572485915 cites W1995398158 @default.
W1572485915 cites W1997100013 @default.
W1572485915 cites W1997282791 @default.
W1572485915 cites W1999414774 @default.
W1572485915 cites W2001480775 @default.
W1572485915 cites W2001588817 @default.
W1572485915 cites W2002642902 @default.
W1572485915 cites W2003959248 @default.
W1572485915 cites W2004989989 @default.
W1572485915 cites W2005136472 @default.
W1572485915 cites W2010973228 @default.
W1572485915 cites W2011483002 @default.
W1572485915 cites W2011584159 @default.
W1572485915 cites W2012880739 @default.
W1572485915 cites W2018873543 @default.
W1572485915 cites W2021385303 @default.
W1572485915 cites W2023278886 @default.
W1572485915 cites W2023972256 @default.
W1572485915 cites W2024578770 @default.
W1572485915 cites W2024612782 @default.
W1572485915 cites W2025389226 @default.
W1572485915 cites W2029346223 @default.
W1572485915 cites W2031137744 @default.
W1572485915 cites W2036052614 @default.
W1572485915 cites W2039297699 @default.
W1572485915 cites W2040126024 @default.
W1572485915 cites W2040141893 @default.
W1572485915 cites W2042319268 @default.
W1572485915 cites W2043072682 @default.
W1572485915 cites W2046781414 @default.
W1572485915 cites W2050986291 @default.
W1572485915 cites W2051834698 @default.
W1572485915 cites W2054708872 @default.
W1572485915 cites W2055091287 @default.
W1572485915 cites W2056884277 @default.
W1572485915 cites W2058436463 @default.
W1572485915 cites W2063798390 @default.
W1572485915 cites W2068620279 @default.
W1572485915 cites W2070325571 @default.
W1572485915 cites W2070903023 @default.
W1572485915 cites W2074389089 @default.
W1572485915 cites W2075956298 @default.