what is actually proven about the female body after forty

Weight loss and GLP-1

Neurolinguistic programming: a systematic review of the effects on health outcomes.

5 Repeated evidence

How much this weighs: several studies in people, combined — the strongest kind of evidence there is.
Type of study
meta-analysis or systematic review
Studied in
people
Participants
not stated in the abstract
Published
2013 in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners
Cited
13 times by other research
Who paid
Not declared. PubMed carries no conflict-of-interest statement for most articles; that is not the same as independent.
Source
PubMed 23211179 · doi 10.3399/bjgp12X658287
The plain-language write-up of this study is still being written. Below is the abstract exactly as the researchers published it.
Abstract by the researchers — original text

BACKGROUND: Neurolinguistic programming (NLP) in health care has captured the interest of doctors, healthcare professionals, and managers. AIM: To evaluate the effects of NLP on health-related outcomes. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review of experimental studies. METHOD: The following data sources were searched: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, ASSIA, AMED, CINAHL, Web of Knowledge, CENTRAL, NLP specialist databases, reference lists, review articles, and NLP professional associations, training providers, and research groups. RESULTS: Searches revealed 1459 titles from which 10 experimental studies were included. Five studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and five were pre-post studies. Targeted health conditions were anxiety disorders, weight maintenance, morning sickness, substance misuse, and claustrophobia during MRI scanning. NLP interventions were mainly delivered across 4-20 sessions although three were single session. Eighteen outcomes were reported and the RCT sample sizes ranged from 22 to 106. Four RCTs reported no significant between group differences with the fifth finding in favour of the NLP arm (F = 8.114, P<0.001). Three RCTs and five pre-post studies reported within group improvements. Risk of bias across all studies was high or uncertain. CONCLUSION: There is little evidence that NLP interventions improve health-related outcomes. This conclusion reflects the limited quantity and quality of NLP research, rather than robust evidence of no effect. There is currently insufficient evidence to support the allocation of NHS resources to NLP activities outside of research purposes.