Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21359589›Full record

ArticleObesity surgery2011

Experimental metabolic surgery: justification and technical aspects.

Fàtima Sabench Pereferrer, Mercè Hernàndez Gonzàlez, Daniel Del Castillo Déjardin

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Obesity surgery, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

3 authors.

Fàtima Sabench PereferrerSurgery Unit of the Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Rovira i Virgili University, IIS Pere Virgili (IISPV), Reus, Tarragona, Spain. fatima.sabench@urv.cat
Mercè Hernàndez Gonzàlez
Daniel Del Castillo Déjardin

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMetabolic surgery is a surgical strategy which has shown great potential in the treatment of diseases which may be associated with morbid obesity. It must be developed on the basis of both animal and clinical research. The objective of this study is to set out the various options in experimentation animals and the technical characteristics in operations, and the specific animal care undertaken by our group.

methodsWe identified and reviewed the key points to be considered in animal handling during interventions such as sleeve gastrectomy, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, ileal transposition and duodenal exclusion.

resultsThe technical variations found at experimental level are due to the pouch capacity for the Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Intestinal anastomosis is the variable with the greatest differences found between the various working groups. Ileal transposition is a technique that is undergoing constant review, and the results differ substantially depending on the animal model chosen, and are also metabolically effective in animals with a normal weight. Duodenal exclusion by means of a physical barrier has not been studied sufficiently but could be a pre-operative support for weight loss.

conclusionsThere are experimental technical discrepancies and further studies are necessary to ascertain their efficiency. Metabolic surgery currently complements bariatric surgery and justifies the appearance of new experimental studies. The animal models chosen are very important as only very specific study models will be used in cases in which the technique is sufficiently validated by the research team, as the results to be assessed depend on this.

Indexed as

Disease Models, AnimalLaboratory Animal ScienceAnimalsAnimals, LaboratoryBariatric SurgeryMetabolic SyndromeObesity, MorbidRatsRats, Sprague-DawleyRats, Zucker

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.