U.S. Preventive Services Task Force banner
U.S. Preventive Services Task Force

You Are Here: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force > Topic Index > Screening: Obesity in Adults > Recommendations & Rationale


Screening for Obesity in Adults

Recommendations and Rationale


This statement summarizes the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations on screening for obesity in adults based on the USPSTF's examination of evidence specific to obesity and overweight in adults. It updates the 1996 recommendations contained in the Guide to Clinical Preventive Service, Second Edition1.


Summary of Recommendations

  • The USPSTF recommends that clinicians screen all adult patients for obesity and offer intensive counseling and behavioral interventions to promote sustained weight loss for obese adults.

    Rating: B Recommendation.

    Rationale: The USPSTF found good evidence that body mass index (BMI), calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared, is reliable and valid for identifying adults at increased risk for mortality and morbidity due to overweight and obesity. There is fair to good evidence that high-intensity counseling—about diet, exercise, or both—together with behavioral interventions aimed at skill development, motivation, and support strategies produces modest, sustained weight loss (typically 3-5 kg for 1 year or more) in adults who are obese (as defined by BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2). Although the USPSTF did not find direct evidence that behavioral interventions lower mortality or morbidity from obesity, the USPSTF concluded that changes in intermediate outcomes, such as improved glucose metabolism, lipid levels, and blood pressure, from modest weight loss provide indirect evidence of health benefits. No evidence was found that addressed the harms of counseling and behavioral interventions. The USPSTF concluded that the benefits of screening and behavioral interventions outweigh potential harms.

  • The USPSTF concludes that the evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against the use of moderate- or low-intensity counseling together with behavioral interventions to promote sustained weight loss in obese adults.

    Rating: I Recommendation.

    Rationale: The USPSTF found limited evidence to determine whether moderate- or low-intensity counseling with behavioral interventions produces sustained weight loss in obese (as defined by BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2) adults. The relevant studies were of fair to good quality but showed mixed results. In addition, studies were limited by small sample sizes, high drop-out rates, potential for selection bias, and reporting the average weight change instead of the frequency of response to the intervention. As a result, the USPSTF could not determine the balance of benefits and potential harms of these types of interventions.

  • The USPSTF concludes that the evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against the use of counseling of any intensity and behavioral interventions to promote sustained weight loss in overweight adults.

    Rating: I Recommendation.

    Rationale: The USPSTF found limited data that addressed the efficacy of counseling-based interventions in overweight adults (as defined by BMI from 25-29.9 kg/m2). As a result, the USPSTF could not determine the balance of benefits and potential harms of counseling to promote sustained weight loss in overweight adults.


Contents

Clinical Considerations
Scientific Evidence
Recommendations of Others
References
Members of the Task Force
Contact the Task Force
Available Products

Task Force Ratings
Strength of Recommendations and Quality of Evidence

Corresponding Author: Alfred O. Berg, M.D., M.P.H., Chair, U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, c/o Project Director, USPSTF, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 540 Gaither Road, Rockville, MD 20850.


Clinical Considerations

Return to Contents

Scientific Evidence

Epidemiology and Clinical Consequences

The importance of obesity as a health problem in the United States is increasingly apparent. Defined as a BMI of equal to or greater than 30, obesity in the United States has increased from a prevalence of 13 percent to 27 percent in the adult population over the last 40 years, and the prevalence of overweight rose from 31 percent to 34 percent.4,5 Obesity is more common in women and overweight is more common in men; obesity is especially common in African Americans, Native Americans, Native Hawaiians, and some Hispanic populations.5

Obesity and overweight are associated with an increased risk for coronary heart disease (CHD), hypertension, and stroke; type 2 diabetes; several types of cancer, including those of the colon, kidney, gallbladder, breast, and endometrium; sleep apnea; gall bladder disease; and certain musculoskeletal disorders, such as knee osteoarthritis (http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/topics/obesity/calltoaction/1_2.htm). In addition, obesity is associated with decreased quality of life, including diminished mobility and social stigmatization.6 The association between obesity and health outcomes may vary by ethnic group, but the USPSTF found the evidence insufficient to draw conclusions. Recent analyses estimate that direct costs of obesity account for 5.7 percent of total U.S. health expenditures.7

Accuracy and Reliability of Screening Test

The BMI, calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters, squared, is the measure used to define obesity and is also the most commonly used test to screen for obesity. Thus, the USPSTF specifically defined screening as the measurement of BMI by the clinician with the purpose of assessing and addressing body weight in the clinical setting.

The BMI is easy to measure, highly reliable, and highly correlated with percentage of body fat and body fat mass (R2 = 0.95 in men; R2 = 0.98 in women).1,8,9 However, in the elderly, who generally have a higher proportion of internal fat than younger people, BMI correlates least strongly with percentage of body fat.9 Nevertheless, estimates of body fat percentages measured using BMI in the elderly have shown error rates comparable to those measured using BMI in younger adults (approximately 4 percent).10 The clinical relevance, or external validity, of BMI measurement is clear from the established prospective links between BMI and multiple adverse health outcomes.11-18

The BMI is age-dependent and does not account for body fat distribution, an independent risk factor for health outcomes.12,19 Also, the BMI does not take into account "fitness" (the weight of muscle versus the weight of fat in a heavily muscled individual), which is inversely associated with mortality independent of the BMI.12 Central, or abdominal, adiposity, usually measured by the waist-hip ratio or waist circumference, has been most closely linked with cardiovascular risk in several prospective studies. In the Health Professional Follow-up Study, overall and cardiovascular mortality in men increased linearly with baseline BMI in younger men (those initially younger than 65) and had no relationship with BMI in older men (those initially at least 65); by contrast, waist circumference predicted risk for overall and cardiovascular mortality among the younger men, and predicted risk for cardiovascular death among the older men.20 In a cohort of women in Iowa, the waist-hip ratio was a better predictor of total or CHD mortality than BMI.21 Even women in the lowest BMI quintile had a markedly increased risk for diabetes if they also had a high waist-hip ratio.21

The BMI has been linked with a wide range of health outcomes, and entry criteria for most studies are based on BMI. Obesity treatment trials typically reported change either in weight (directly proportional to BMI) or BMI. Consequently, the USPSTF focused its analysis on use of the BMI.

Effectiveness of Detection and Intervention

Although the diagnosis of obesity is at times obvious, clinicians often do not address the issue with their obese patients. In a large national study of adults with a BMI of 30 or greater, for example, only 42 percent reported that their health care professional advised them to lose weight.22

The USPSTF found no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of obesity screening programs in improving the clinical outcomes of mortality, morbidity, mental health, or functioning. Thus, the Task Force examined indirect evidence regarding the component questions of the effectiveness of interventions to lose weight, and the effects of weight loss on intermediate and clinical outcomes.

The Effectiveness of Interventions on Weight Loss

The USPSTF examined 3 categories of weight loss counseling and behavioral interventions using lifestyle change, pharmacotherapy, and surgery. The USPSTF examined published systematic reviews as well as the primary research. Counseling interventions include a variety of approaches aimed at promoting change in diet and/or physical activity. Behavioral interventions include strategies that assist patients to acquire skills, improve motivation, and develop supports. The 5-A framework (Assess, Advise, Agree, Assist, and Arrange) has been used in behavioral counseling interventions and may be a useful tool to help clinicians guide interventions for weight loss.23

Counseling and behavioral interventions showed small to moderate degrees of weight loss sustained over at least 1 year. Counseling interventions led to weight changes in the range of 1 kg to -6 kg24,25 or from -4 to -8 percent of body weight.26 Although several trials were of good quality, most were judged only fair, with limitations such as small sample size, potential selection bias (trials often enrolled volunteers), and high drop-out rates. Studies tended to report mean group weight change and not frequency of response to the interventions. Trials of higher-intensity interventions (defined by the USPSTF as person-to-person meetings more than once a month for at least the first 3 months), and combinations of interventions appeared to promote greater weight loss than trials of lower-intensity interventions.

Among 11 RCTs evaluating high-intensity interventions, only 3 explicitly stated the location of the interventions: 2 were conducted in large research clinics and 1 was conducted in a primary physician's office.3 The 11 RCTs used a variety of health professionals to deliver the interventions, including physicians, psychologists, dietitians, behavioral therapists, exercise instructors, and multidisciplinary teams.3 Four RCTs using high-intensity interventions achieved significant reductions in weight or prevention of weight gain in the treatment groups (average loss: 2.7-5.5 kg at 12 months to more than 2 years of followup).27-30 Trials with followup beyond 1 year tended to show a loss of effect; but several studies showed a modest weight loss maintained at 24 to 36 months. Weight loss methods may need to be paired with longer-term maintenance interventions for sustained improvement.

The USPSTF found the evidence supporting pharmacotherapy of mostly fair quality. Data for sibutramine and orlistat suggest that these drugs have modest but potentially sustained effects.3,31 Although average weight loss was consistently modest (weight reduction of 3-5 kg), the percentage of patients achieving clinically significant weight loss (5-10 percent of body weight) was sometimes substantial.3 Weight maintenance trials suggested that prolonged pharmacotherapy confers some benefit but that its discontinuation may lead to rapid weight regain. There are limited data on combined behavioral and pharmacological interventions. One fair-quality trial showed that a combination of intensive behavioral therapy and sibutramine led to greater weight loss (mean of 7.3 kg over 1 year) compared with sibutramine alone, and that a combination of intensive behavioral therapy and diet control with sibutramine led to even greater weight loss (mean of 12.8 kg over 1 year) compared with sibutramine alone.32

Obesity surgery (e.g., gastric banding, vertical banded gastroplasty, and gastric bypass) has been performed for only a select group of patients; the NHLBI clinical guide for identification, evaluation, and treatment of overweight and obesity in adults recommends surgical intervention only for those people with a BMI > 40 or a BMI of 35 to 40 with at least 1 obesity-related comorbidity.26 National data indicate that 5 to 6 percent of the general population has a BMI in this range.33 Surgical data are typically limited by the lack of placebo-controlled RCTs; the internal validity of the controlled trials is of only "fair" quality. Nonetheless, the degree of weight reduction obtained with surgical intervention is consistently dramatic (typically 20 kg or more).3,24,25 Based on a large literature of controlled and uncontrolled cohort studies, the weight loss may be prolonged and can be achieved in patients who have multiple comorbidities.3,24,25

The Effectiveness of Weight Loss on Intermediate Outcomes

Weight reduction of 5 to 7 percent body weight is associated with lower incidence of diabetes, reduced blood pressure, and improved dyslipidemia.26,30 Greater weight loss has been linked with more dramatic improvements in glycemic control and lipids in limited surgical (non-RCT) outcomes data. Surgical cohort studies suggest that large amounts of weight loss may be linked with dramatic improvements in glucose metabolism.34,35 Surgically treated patients are more likely to have resolution of diabetes, hypertension, and certain dyslipidemias than patients who do not undergo surgery.34-36

The Effectiveness of Weight Loss on Clinical Outcomes

The USPSTF searched for evidence that weight loss can affect mortality, morbidity, mental health, and daily functioning, but found the evidence severely limited. There are no strong data to demonstrate that weight loss reduces mortality. Moderate intentional weight loss (5-10 percent of initial body weight) has been shown to reduce the severity of comorbidities associated with obesity, and limited observational data suggest that intentional weight loss in the obese can lead to reduced mortality.26,37 Two recent trials provide strong evidence that behaviorally mediated weight loss can prevent diabetes.29,30 One trial evaluating 2 types of behavioral therapy showed borderline improved self-esteem in both treatment groups.38 The USPSTF found mixed evidence of improvements of secondary health outcomes among the short-term pharmacotherapy trials.

Potential Harms of Screening and Treatment

The USPTF did not find studies evaluating the harms of screening, counseling, or behavioral interventions. Nonetheless, a potential risk does exist, particularly as the stigma of obesity is well established. Possible labeling effects of diagnosis may occur. The National Task Force on the Prevention and Treatment of Obesity found that dieting does not lead to problems in psychological functioning or eating disorders in overweight or obese adults.39 There are limited and conflicting data on the potential harms of weight cycling (cycles of weight loss followed by weight regain). There may be harms related to pharmacological and surgical interventions. Common adverse effects occur more frequently with sibutramine (especially an increase in blood pressure and heart rate), but no serious adverse events were reported.31 Orlistat causes gastrointestinal fecal urgency, flatulence, and oily spotting in 22 to 27 percent of people taking the drug.31 The long-term safety (> 2 years) of sibutramine and orlistat is unknown. Surgical procedures are followed by procedure-specific complications (e.g., wound infection, staple failure, and leakage), but are rarely fatal (mortality was less than 1 percent of patients in pooled samples).3 The jejuno-ileal bypass is no longer recommended because of excessive malabsorption.25 Re-operation is necessary within 5 years in up to 25 percent of patients, and patients require long-term followup and multivitamin supplementation.3

Return to Contents

Recommendations of Others

The Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care finds insufficient evidence to recommend for or against BMI measurement in the periodic health examination of the general population and found insufficient evidence to recommend for or against community-based obesity prevention programs.24 The American Academy of Family Physicians40 and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommend periodic measurements of height and weight. NIH has a 2-step guideline of assessment and treatment management of overweight and obese individuals.26 The American College of Preventive Medicine recommends periodic BMI measurement of all adults and diet and exercise counseling of all adults (irrespective of BMI) and endorses NIH management guidelines.41 The American Diabetes Association has published a position statement that recommends the use of intensive lifestyle modification programs along with standard weight loss strategies for long-term weight loss and maintenance.42

Return to Contents

References

1. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Guide to Clinical Preventive Services, 2nd ed. Washington, DC: Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion; 1996.

2. McTigue K. Screening and interventions for overweight and obesity in adults: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2003;139(11):933-49.

3. McTigue K, Harris R, Hemphill MB, et al. Screening and Interventions for Obesity in Adults. Systematic Evidence Review No. 21 (Prepared by the Research Triangle Institute-University of North Carolina Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract 290-97-0011). Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. December 2003. Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bookshelf/br.fcgi?book=es21.

4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Department of Health and Human Services. Health, United States, 2000.

5. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). CDC, 1999.

6. Roe DA, Eickwort KR. Relationships between obesity and associated health factors with unemployment among low income women. J Am Med Womens Assoc 1976;31(5):193-4, 198-9, 203-4.

7. Wolf AM, Colditz GA. Current estimates of the economic cost of obesity in the United States. Obes Res 1998;6(2):97-106.

8. Gray DS, Fujioka K. Use of relative weight and body mass index for the determination of adiposity. J Clin Epidemiol 1991;44(6):545-50.

9. Deurenberg P, Weststrate JA, Seidell JC. Body mass index as a measure of body fatness: age- and sex-specific prediction formulas. Br J Nutr 1991;65(2):105-14.

10. Deurenberg P, van der Kooy K, Hulshof T, Evers P. Body mass index as a measure of body fatness in the elderly. Eur J Clin Nutr 1989;43(4):231-6.

11. Shaper AG, Wannamethee SG, Walker M. Body weight: implications for the prevention of coronary heart disease, stroke, and diabetes mellitus in a cohort study of middle aged men. BMJ 1997;314(7090):1311-7.

12. Huang Z, Willett WC, Manson JE, et al. Body weight, weight change, and risk for hypertension in women. Ann Intern Med 1998;128(2):81-8.

13. Durazo-Arvizu RA, McGee DL, Cooper RS, Liao Y, Luke A. Mortality and optimal body mass index in a sample of the US population. Am J Epidemiol 1998;147(8):739-49.

14. Calle EE, Thun MJ, Petrelli JM, Rodriguez C, Heath CWJ. Body-mass index and mortality in a prospective cohort of U.S. adults. N Engl J Med 1999;341(15):1097-105.

15. Rosengren A, Wedel H, Wilhelmsen L. Body weight and weight gain during adult life in men in relation to coronary heart disease and mortality. A prospective population study. Eur Heart J 1999;20(4):269-77.

16. Kim KS, Owen WL, Williams D, Adams-Campbell LL. A comparison between BMI and Conicity index on predicting coronary heart disease: the Framingham Heart Study. Ann Epidemiol 2000;10(7):424-31.

17. Willett WC, Manson JE, Stampfer MJ, et al. Weight, weight change, and coronary heart disease in women. Risk within the 'normal' weight range. JAMA 1995;273(6):461-5.

18. Colditz GA, Willett WC, Rotnitzky A, Manson JE. Weight gain as a risk factor for clinical diabetes mellitus in women. Ann Intern Med 1995;122(7):481-6.

19. Wannamethee SG, Shaper AG, Walker M, Ebrahim S. Lifestyle and 15-year survival free of heart attack, stroke, and diabetes in middle-aged British men. Arch Intern Med 1998;158(22):2433-40.

20. Baik I, Ascherio A, Rimm EB, et al. Adiposity and mortality in men. Am J Epidemiol 2000;152(3):264-71.

21. Folsom AR, Kushi LH, Anderson KE, et al. Associations of general and abdominal obesity with multiple health outcomes in older women: the Iowa Women's Health Study. Arch Intern Med 2000;160(14):2117-28.

22. Galuska DA, Will JC, Serdula MK, Ford ES. Are health care professionals advising obese patients to lose weight? JAMA 1999;282(16):1576-8.

23. Whitlock E, Orleans C, Pender N, Allan J. Evaluating primary care behavioral counseling interventions: an evidence-based approach. Am J Prev Med 2002;22(4):267-84.

24. Douketis JD, Feightner JW, Attia J, Feldman WF. Periodic health examination, 1999 update: 1. Detection, prevention and treatment of obesity. Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. CMAJ 1999;160(4):513-25. Available at www.cmaj.ca/cgi/reprint/160/4/513.pdf.

25. NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York. The prevention and treatment of obesity. Eff Health Care 1997;3(2):1-12.

26. NHLBI Obesity Education Initiative. Clinical guidelines on the identification, evaluation, and treatment of overweight and obesity in adults: the Evidence Report. NIH Publication No. 98-4083. Bethesda, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; 1998.

27. Stevens J. Obesity and mortality in African-Americans. Nutr Rev 2000;58(11):346-53.

28. Kuller LH, Simkin-Silverman LR, Wing RR, Meilahn EN, Ives DG. Women's Healthy Lifestyle Project: A randomized clinical trial: results at 54 months. Circulation 2001;103(1):32-7.

29. Tuomilehto J, Lindstrom J, Eriksson JG, et al. Prevention of type 2 diabetes mellitus by changes in lifestyle among subjects with impaired glucose tolerance. N Engl J Med 2001;344(18):1343-50.

30. Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group. Reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes with lifestyle intervention or metformin. N Engl J Med 2002;346(6):393-403.

31. Arterburn D, Noel PH. Effects of drug treatment for obesity in adults. Clin Evid 2001:412-9.

32. Wadden TA, Berkowitz RI, Sarwer DB, Prus-Wisniewski R, Steinberg C. Benefits of lifestyle modification in the pharmacologic treatment of obesity: a randomized trial. Arch Intern Med 2001;161(2):218-27.

33. Must A, Spadano J, Coakley EH, Field AE, Colditz G, Dietz WH. The disease burden associated with overweight and obesity. JAMA 1999;282(16):1523-9.

34. Pories WJ, Swanson MS, MacDonald KG, et al. Who would have thought it? An operation proves to be the most effective therapy for adult-onset diabetes mellitus. Ann Surg 1995;222(3):339-50; discussion 350-2.

35. Sjostrom CD, Lissner L, Wedel H, Sjostrom L. Reduction in incidence of diabetes, hypertension and lipid disturbances after intentional weight loss induced by bariatric surgery: the SOS Intervention Study. Obes Res 1999;7(5):477-84.

36. Brolin RE, Bradley LJ, Wilson AC, Cody RP. Lipid risk profile and weight stability after gastric restrictive operations for morbid obesity. J Gastrointest Surg 2000;4(5):464-9.

37. Choban P, Atkinson R, Moore BJ. (Shape up America and the American Obesity Association.) Guidance for treatment of adult obesity, 1996: 1996-1998.

38. Sbrocco T, Nedegaard RC, Stone JM, Lewis EL. Behavioral choice treatment promotes continuing weight loss: preliminary results of a cognitive-behavioral decision-based treatment for obesity. J Consult Clin Psychol 1999;67(2):260-6.

39. National Task Force on the Prevention and Treatment of Obesity. Overweight, complications obesity and health risk. Arch Intern Med 2000;160:898-904.

40. American Academy of Family Physicians. Periodic Health Examinations. Recommend: General Population. Revision 5.3, August 2002. Available at www.aafp.org/x10598.xml.

41. Nawaz H, Katz D. American College of Preventive Medicine Medical Practice Policy Statement: Weight Management Counseling for Overweight Adults. Am J Prev Med 2001;21:73-8. Available at www.acpm.org/polstmt_weight.pdf.

42. Franz MJ, Bantle JP, Beebe CA, et al. Evidence based nutrition principles and recommendations for the treatment and prevention of diabetes and related complications. Diabetes Care 2002;25:148-98. Available at care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/full/25/1/148.

Return to Contents

Members of the Task Force

Members of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force* are Alfred O. Berg, M.D., M.P.H., Chair, USPSTF (Professor and Chair, Department of Family Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA); Janet D. Allan, Ph.D., R.N., C.S., F.A.A.N., Vice-chair, USPSTF (Dean, School of Nursing, University of Maryland Baltimore, Baltimore, MD); Paul Frame, M.D. (Tri-County Family Medicine, Cohocton, NY, and Clinical Professor of Family Medicine, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY); Charles J. Homer, M.D., M.P.H. (Executive Director, National Initiative for Children's Healthcare Quality, Boston, MA); Mark S. Johnson, M.D., M.P.H. (Professor of Family Medicine, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey-New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ); Jonathan D. Klein, M.D., M.P.H. (Associate Professor, Department of Pediatrics, University of Rochester School of Medicine, Rochester, NY); Tracy A. Lieu, M.D., M.P.H. (Associate Professor, Department of Ambulatory Care and Prevention, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA); C. Tracy Orleans, Ph.D. (Senior Scientist, The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Princeton, NJ); Jeffrey F. Peipert, M.D., M.P.H. (Director of Research, Women and Infants' Hospital, Providence, RI); Nola J. Pender, Ph.D., R.N., F.A.A.N. (Professor Emeritus, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI); Albert L. Siu, M.D., M.S.P.H. (Professor of Medicine, Chief of Division of General Internal Medicine, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY); Steven M. Teutsch, M.D., M.P.H. (Senior Director, Outcomes Research and Management, Merck & Company, Inc., West Point, PA); Carolyn Westhoff, M.D., M.Sc. (Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Professor of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY); and Steven H. Woolf, M.D., M.P.H. (Professor, Department of Family Practice and Department of Preventive and Community Medicine and Director of Research Department of Family Practice, Virginia Commonwealth University, Fairfax, VA).

* Members of the USPSTF at the time this recommendation was finalized.

Return to Contents

Contact the Task Force

Address correspondence to: Chair, U.S. Preventive Services Task Force; c/o Project Director, USPSTF; 540 Gaither Road; Rockville, MD 20850..

Return to Contents

Available Products

This statement summarizes the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations on screening for obesity in adults based on the USPSTF's examination of evidence specific to obesity and overweight in adults. It updates the 1996 recommendations contained in the Guide to Clinical Preventive Service, Second Edition.1

The complete information on which this statement is based, including evidence tables and references, is available in the summary of the evidence2 and in the systematic evidence review, "Screening and Interventions for Overweight and Obesity in Adults."3 The USPSTF recommendations, the accompanying summary article, and the complete systematic evidence review are available through the USPSTF Web site (http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org).

The USPSTF recommendations are independent of the U.S. Government. They do not represent the views of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or the U.S. Public Health Service.

Recommendations made by the USPSTF are independent of the U.S. Government. They should not be construed as an official position of AHRQ or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Source: This recommendation first appeared in Ann Intern Med 2003;139(11):930-2.

Return to Contents

Current as of November 2003


Internet Citation:

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for Obesity in Adults: Recommendations and Rationale. November 2003. http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/3rduspstf/obesity/obesrr.htm


 


USPSTF Program Office   540 Gaither Road, Rockville, MD 20850