We conducted a scoping review to identify definitions of metabolically healthy obesity (MHO), describe gaps in the literature, and establish a universal definition of MHO in children. We searched electronic databases from January 1980 to June 2017 and grey literature. Experimental, quasi-experimental, or observational studies were eligible for inclusion if they (i) included a definition of MHO that identified risk factors, cut-off values, and the number of criteria used to define MHO, and (ii) classified 2-18 year olds as overweight or obese. Two reviewers independently screened 1,711 papers for relevance and quality; we extracted data from 39 individual reports that met inclusion criteria. Most (31/39; 79%) definitions of MHO included an absence of cardiometabolic risk factors. Heterogeneity across MHO definitions, obesity criteria, and sample sizes/characteristics resulted in variable prevalence estimates (3-80%). Finally, we convened an international panel of 46 experts to complete a 4-round Delphi process to generate a consensus-based definition of MHO. Based on consensus (≥ 80% agreement), our definition of MHO included: high density lipoprotein-cholesterol > 40 mg/dl (or > 1.03 mmol/l), triglycerides ≤ 150 mg/dl (or ≤ 1.7 mmol/l), systolic and diastolic blood pressure ≤ 90th percentile, and a measure of glycemia. This definition of MHO holds potential universal value to enable comparisons between studies and inform clinical decision-making for children with obesity.

We describe a mother and her 3 children with variable scalp defects and limb defects consistent with a diagnosis of Adams Oliver syndrome also presenting with additional anomalies including congenital heart disease, microcephaly, epilepsy, mental retardation, arrhinencephaly, hydrocephaly, anatomic bronchial anomalies, and renal anomalies. The clinical variation between the individuals is more pronounced than in previously reported families.

Our innovative, eHealth SBIRT was feasible in primary care and has the potential to encourage parents of unhealthy weight children towards preventative action.

Objective: To assess registration and reporting details of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from 2011 to 2016 across four obesity journals. Methods: All issues from four leading obesity journals were searched systematically for RCTs from January 2011 to June 2016. Data on registration status were extracted from manuscripts, online trial registries, and a trial database; corresponding authors were contacted for registration details, when necessary. The methodological reporting of RCTs was assessed on specific criteria from the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials. Results: A total of 223 RCTs were reviewed. Three-quarters (n 5 170) were registered publicly; 94 (55.3%) reported registration details in the manuscript, and 82 (48.2%) were registered prospectively. Newer RCTs were more likely to be registered prospectively than older RCTs (2014RCTs ( -2016RCTs ( : 57.3% vs. 2011RCTs ( -2013 39.2%; c 2 5 5.5, P 5 0.02). Assessment on the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials demonstrated that less than half of all studies reported data collection dates (n 5 108; 48.4%) or included "randomized trial" in the title (n 5 89; 39.9%). Conclusions:The methodological reporting of RCTs published in obesity journals is suboptimal, despite current guidelines and policies. To complement existing standards, editorial boards should incorporate mandatory fields within the online manuscript submission process to enhance the quality, transparency, and comprehensiveness of reporting RCTs in obesity journals.

No abstract