Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19125308›Full record

ReviewSurgical endoscopy2009

Clinical application of laparoscopic bariatric surgery: an evidence-based review.

Timothy M Farrell, Stephen P Haggerty, D Wayne Overby, Geoffrey P Kohn, William S Richardson, Robert D Fanelli

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Surgical endoscopy, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

46 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Timothy M FarrellDepartment of Surgery, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7081, USA. tfarrell@med.unc.edu
Stephen P Haggerty
D Wayne Overby
Geoffrey P Kohn
William S Richardson
Robert D Fanelli

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundApproximately one-third of U.S. adults are obese. Current evidence suggests that surgical therapies offer the morbidly obese the best hope for substantial and sustainable weight loss, with a resultant reduction in morbidity and mortality. Minimally invasive methods have altered the demand for bariatric procedures. However, no evidence-based clinical reviews yet exist to guide patients and surgeons in selecting the bariatric operation most applicable to a given situation.

methodsThis evidenced-based review is presented in conjunction with a clinical practice guideline developed by the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES). References were reviewed by the authors and graded as to the level of evidence. Recommendations were developed and qualified by the level of supporting evidence available at the time of the associated SAGES guideline publication. The guideline also was reviewed and co-endorsed by the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery.

resultsBariatric surgery is the most effective treatment for severe obesity, producing durable weight loss, improvement of comorbid conditions, and longer life. Patient selection algorithms should favor individual risk-benefit considerations over traditional anthropometric and demographic limits. Bariatric care should be delivered within credentialed multidisciplinary systems. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RGB), adjustable gastric banding (AGB), and biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch (BPD + DS) are validated procedures that may be performed laparoscopically. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) also is a promising procedure. Comparative data find that procedures with more dramatic clinical benefits carry greater risks, and those offering greater safety and flexibility are associated with less reliable efficacy.

conclusionsLaparoscopic RGB, AGB, BPD + DS, and primary LSG have been proved effective. Currently, the choice of operation should be driven by patient and surgeon preferences, as well as by considerations regarding the relative importance placed on discrete outcomes.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyAdultBariatric SurgeryEvidence-Based MedicineHumansObesity, MorbidPatient SelectionPreoperative CareTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.