Incorrect analysis in "Effects of the application of a food processing-based classification system in obese women: A randomized controlled pilot study" has resulted in incorrect conclusions of demonstrated effects where no such effects have been demonstrated.

Abstract

In their 2023 Nutrition and Health paper "Effects of the application of a food processing-based classification system in obese women: A randomized controlled pilot study", Giacomello et al. investigated the effects of an educational intervention based on the Dietary Guidelines for the Brazilian Population among obese women. The authors concluded that the intervention significantly improved weight loss, quality of life, components of metabolic syndrome, and pain. However, we believe the statistical analysis employed in the study was flawed. The authors used within-group changes to draw conclusions, which is known as a difference in nominal significance error. This error has the potential to inflate Type I error rates substantially. To address this issue, we re-analyzed the data obtained from the authors. We focused on body mass and hip circumference and replicated the incorrectly chosen within-group analyses, which remained significant. However, to properly evaluate the intervention's effectiveness, it is essential to compare the differences between the groups directly. Therefore, we calculated change scores for each participant and used independent samples t-tests and linear mixed models to compare between-group differences. Both methods yielded similar non-significant p-values, indicating that there is no significant effect of treatment on body mass or hip circumference. The original paper's conclusions regarding the effectiveness of the intervention are not supported by the proper statistical analysis. The data should be re-analyzed using appropriate between-group comparisons, and the corrected results should be published, or the incorrect results and original paper should be retracted.