ArticleObesity surgery2017
Criteria for Inclusion of Newer Bariatric and Metabolic Procedures into the Mainstream: a Survey of 396 Bariatric Surgeons.
Article in Obesity surgery, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The effectiveness of the Braun anastomosis in the management of severe hypoalbuminaemia occurring after a single anastomosis sleeve ileal bypass.Journal of minimal access surgery · 2026Article
- The Alarming Rate of Malnutrition after Single Anastomosis Sleeve Ileal Bypass. A single Centre Experience.Obesity surgery · 2024Article
- 1-Year Follow-up of Single Anastomosis Sleeve Ileal (SASI) Bypass in Morbid Obese Patients: Efficacy and Concerns.Obesity surgery · 2020Article
- Understanding Objections to One Anastomosis (Mini) Gastric Bypass: A Survey of 417 Surgeons Not Performing this Procedure.Obesity surgery · 2017Article
- Are objections to one anastomosis/mini gastric bypass scientific?Journal of minimal access surgeryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is currently no consensus on the criteria for inclusion of new bariatric procedures into routine clinical practice. This study canvasses bariatric surgeons in an attempt to define these criteria.
methodsBariatric Surgeons from around the world were invited to participate in a questionnaire-based survey on SurveyMonkey ®.
results396 bariatric surgeons, 337 International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders (IFSO) members, took the survey. Five clinical studies conducted under the strict monitoring of an Institutional Review Board would satisfy most surgeons (67.7 %, n = 266). When asked regarding the number of patients in these studies, a cumulative number of 500 patients would satisfy 64.5 % (n = 255) of the surgeons. Most respondents regarded endorsement by their national society and IFSO as 'very important' or 'extremely important'. An overwhelming 74.4 % (n = 294) felt that every new procedure should undergo a randomized comparison against one of the established alternatives like Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass or Sleeve Gastrectomy.
conclusionEvaluation of a new bariatric procedure in at least 5 adequately supervised clinical studies (four of which must be randomized comparisons with one of the existing alternatives) reporting at least 5 years results on a minimum of 500 patients would satisfy majority of bariatric surgeons for the inclusion of a new bariatric procedure into clinical practice. The findings of this survey are simply aimed at starting a discussion on this topic and cannot be used to influence the ground reality until an international consensus can be reached amongst experts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27709488What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.