Obesity and overweight conditions have become major health challenges worldwide. The exploration of effective weight loss strategies is essential. Nudges are currently advancing approaches that represent a new and better method for changing the behaviors of people. However, the effectiveness of nudge interventions on weight loss in overweight people who may be obese has not been synthesized in a systematic manner. In this study, a systematic literature search was performed. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were considered. Weighted mean differences (WMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated as summary statistics. In total, 25 RCTs involving a population of 5,929 individuals were included. Significant effects of the nudge strategy on weight loss (WMD: -0.96 kg, 95% CI: -1.49 to -0.43), body mass index (WMD: -0.3 kg/m2, 95% CI: -0.41 to -0.19) and waist circumference (WMD: -0.75 cm, 95% CI: -1.23 to -0.27) were observed. The subgroup analysis showed that the reduction in body weight associated with nudge interventions was significant in younger and more obese people. Moreover, the effect of nudge intervention on weight loss weakened over time. Overall, the nudge strategy can promote changes in weight loss, body mass index and waist circumference of adults, albeit at a mild magnitude and in particular types of individuals. Nudge strategies can be recommended to clinical practitioners and policy-makers to promote obesity management.

Objectives The pharmacoeconomic studies of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) are still in its infancy. Assessing the quality of pharmacoeconomic studies of TCM to improve the efficiency of health resource allocation and guide the rational use of medicine. Methods Four databases were searched from inception to January 2018. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards statement (CHEERS) and the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) were used to assess the reporting quality and methodological quality. STATA 12.0 and Meta analyst 3.13 were used to analyze the related data. Results A total of 178 studies were included. The methodological evaluation of the study found that the total score of QHES was 47.85 +/- 8.09. The report quality evaluation results found that many studies did not report comprehensive information, such as lack of detailed reports on abstracts, study perspectives, time frames, discount rates, model selection, but the titles, study background and location, and health results, resource and cost estimates, analysis methods, and heterogeneity analysis are reported in more detail. Six of the ten stratification factors have statistically significant differences. Conclusion The overall quality of pharmacoeconomic studies of TCM is low, and further standardization and improvement are needed to obtain reliable study results.

Background: To analyze the collaboration and reporting quality of the systematic reviews of social welfare in the Campbell collaboration online library. Methods: The Campbell collaboration online library was searched for systematic reviews of social welfare and the basic information extracted in order to assess the reporting quality of systematic reviews using a MOOSE checklist. BICOMS-2 and UCINET software were used to produce the social network, and Comprehensive Meta Analysis (Version 2) and STATA 13.0 were used to analyze the related data. Results: Fifty-seven systematic reviews of social welfare were included. Twenty-eight items of the included social welfare systematic reviews were rated as complete (≥70%). There were significant differences between ≤2013 and ≥ 2014 in five items. These differences were as follows: research published by one organization or more than one organization in one item, more than three authors or less than four authors in two items, and one country or more than one country in six items. It's completed about researches with more than one organization, three authors or more than one country. Some items were found to have a low reporting rate of studies published before 2014, by one organization, with less than four authors or one country, respectively. The social network of authors and organizations showed good collaboration. Conclusions: Some items could be further improved with regard to the rate of reporting systematic reviews of social welfare in the Campbell collaboration online library. This could improve the overall quality of social welfare systematic reviews.