Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26508845›Full record

SynthesisClinical interventions in aging2015

Bariatric surgery in elderly patients: a systematic review.

Salvatore Giordano, Mikael Victorzon

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical interventions in aging, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 76 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
76citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

76 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

16 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

2 authors.

Salvatore GiordanoDepartment of Plastic and General Surgery, Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland.
Mikael VictorzonDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Vaasa Central Hospital, Vaasa, Finland ; University of Turku, Turku, Finland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Controversy exists regarding the effectiveness and safety of bariatric/metabolic surgery in elderly patients. We performed a systematic review on this issue in patients aged 60 years or older. MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar were searched until August 2015 for studies on outcomes of bariatric surgery in elderly patients. The results were expressed as pooled proportions (%) with 95% confidence intervals. Heterogeneity across the studies was evaluated by the I (2) test, and a random-effects model was used. Twenty-six articles encompassing 8,149 patients were pertinent with this issue and included data on bariatric surgery outcomes in elderly population. Fourteen patients died during the 30-day postoperative period, with a pooled mortality of 0.01%. Pooled overall complication rate was 14.7%. At 1-year follow-up, pooled mean excess weight loss was 53.77%, pooled diabetes resolution was 54.5%, and pooled hypertension resolution was 42.5%, while pooled lipid disorder resolution was 41.2%. Outcomes and complication rates of bariatric surgery in patients older than 60 years are comparable to those in a younger population, independent of the type of procedure performed. Patients should not be denied bariatric surgery because of their age alone.

Indexed as

Bariatric SurgeryAgedAge FactorsHumansMiddle AgedObesity, MorbidPostoperative ComplicationsRisk Factorsbariatric surgeryelderlygastric bypasslaparoscopymorbid obesityweight loss

Identifiers

PMID26508845
PMCPMC4610711

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.