Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27424002›Full record

ArticleObesity surgery2016

Current Status of Preoperative Oesophago-Gastro-Duodenoscopy (OGD) in Bariatric NHS Units-a BOMSS Survey.

Daniela Zanotti, Mohamed Elkalaawy, Majid Hashemi, Andrew Jenkinson, Marco Adamo

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Obesity surgery, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Bariatric surgery and the endoscopist.Frontline gastroenterology · 2021
    Review
  6. Preoperative Endoscopic and Radiologic Evaluation of Bariatric Patients: What Do They Add?Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2020
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Daniela ZanottiGastrointestinal Services, General Surgery, University College Hospital, 235 Euston Road, London, NW1 2BU, UK. dani83k@gmail.com.
Mohamed ElkalaawyGastrointestinal Services, General Surgery, University College Hospital, 235 Euston Road, London, NW1 2BU, UK.
Majid HashemiGastrointestinal Services, General Surgery, University College Hospital, 235 Euston Road, London, NW1 2BU, UK.
Andrew JenkinsonGastrointestinal Services, General Surgery, University College Hospital, 235 Euston Road, London, NW1 2BU, UK.
Marco AdamoGastrointestinal Services, General Surgery, University College Hospital, 235 Euston Road, London, NW1 2BU, UK.
University College Hospital · GBUniversity College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposePreoperative oesophago-gastro-duodenoscopy (p-OGD) is often routinely employed in patients undergoing bariatric surgery. The value of p-OGD is still unclear; however, since all bariatric procedures modify stomach anatomy differently with exclusion of the remnant in a majority of cases, the question arises whether there is a rational for including it routinely in the preoperative pathway. MATERIAL AND

methodsTo assess the current status of p-OGD in the UK, a survey was sent to the British Obesity & Metabolic Surgery Society members, regarding preoperative evaluation of patients, focusing on the role of p-OGD. Forty-nine UK bariatric units (in excess of 5000 patients estimated caseload/year) answered.

resultsThe survey has shown that 44 units (90 %) include OGD in their preoperative work up, routinely or selectively. According to results, 25 units (51 %) changed the operative plans after OGD because of peptic ulcer (46 %), hiatus hernia (43 %), Barrett's oesophagus (32 %) or gastrointestinal stromal tumour (25 %). Only 2 units (7 %) found incidental gastrointestinal cancer. When specifically asked, p-OGD was believed to be essential in patients with family history of gastrointestinal cancer (61 %), pernicious anaemia (57 %) and reflux symptoms (54 %). Five units (10 %) considered p-OGD completely unnecessary. Only 11 units (25 %) would not be able to accommodate routine p-OGD in all patients.

conclusionsMost units value p-OGD, either selectively or routinely, in preparation for bariatric surgery. However, there seems to be a discrepancy on the specific risk factors involved in the selection process. National and international guidelines are advocated.

Indexed as

DuodenoscopyPreoperative CareBariatric SurgeryCross-Sectional StudiesHumansObesity, MorbidUnited KingdomBariatric surgeryObesityPreoperative OGDPreoperative work upUpper gastrointestinal endoscopy

Identifiers

PMID27424002
OpenAlexW2468513017

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.