Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27898680›Full record

GuidelinePLoS medicine2016

A Core Outcome Set for the Benefits and Adverse Events of Bariatric and Metabolic Surgery: The BARIACT Project.

Karen D Coulman, James Hopkins, Sara T Brookes, Katy Chalmers, Barry Main, Amanda Owen-Smith, Robert C Andrews, James Byrne, Jenny L Donovan, Graziella Mazza and 7 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readGuideline
In one paragraph

Guideline in PLoS medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02841527 (Gastric Bypass, Adjustable Gastric Banding or Sleeve Gastrectomy Surgery to Treat Severe and Complex Obesity), which is not on this map. Cited by 48 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
23.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

NCT02841527 nacompletednot on this map

Gastric Bypass, Adjustable Gastric Banding or Sleeve Gastrectomy Surgery to Treat Severe and Complex Obesity: a Multi-centre Randomised Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of BristolRan2012 to 2023Enrolled1,351ConditionsObesity, Surgery, Quality of Life, Weight LossArmsGastric Band, Gastric Bypass, Sleeve Gastrectomy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

48 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 92 citations in OpenAlex.

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

17 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Karen D CoulmanSchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0510-4290
James HopkinsDepartment of Upper GI and Bariatric Surgery, Taunton and Somerset NHS Foundation Trust, Taunton, Somerset, United Kingdom.
Sara T BrookesSchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Katy ChalmersSchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4923-3000
Barry MainSchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Amanda Owen-SmithSchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Robert C AndrewsUniversity of Exeter Medical School, Medical Research, Exeter, United Kingdom.
James ByrneDepartment of General Surgery, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Jenny L DonovanSchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6488-5472
Graziella MazzaClinical Trials and Evaluation Unit, School of Clinical Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Barnaby C ReevesClinical Trials and Evaluation Unit, School of Clinical Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5101-9487
Chris A RogersClinical Trials and Evaluation Unit, School of Clinical Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9624-2615
Janice L ThompsonUniversity of Birmingham, School of Sport, Exercise & Rehabilitation Sciences, Edgbaston, Birmingham, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7312-3226
Richard WelbournDepartment of Upper GI and Bariatric Surgery, Taunton and Somerset NHS Foundation Trust, Taunton, Somerset, United Kingdom.
Sarah WordsworthNuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Jane M BlazebySchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
BARIACT working group
University of Bristol · GBTaunton & Somerset NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Birmingham · GBUniversity of Exeter · GBUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

Department of Health 09/127/53Department of Health DRF-2011-04-032Department of Health DRF-2012-05-142
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBariatric and metabolic surgery is used as a treatment for patients with severe and complex obesity. However, there is a need to improve outcome selection and reporting in bariatric surgery trials. A Core Outcome Set (COS), an agreed minimum set of outcomes reported in all studies of a specific condition, may achieve this. Here, we present the development of a COS for BARIAtric and metabolic surgery Clinical Trials-the BARIACT Study. METHODS AND

findingsOutcomes identified from systematic reviews and patient interviews informed a questionnaire survey. Patients and health professionals were surveyed three times and asked to rate the importance of each item on a 1-9 scale. Delphi methods provided anonymised feedback to participants. Items not meeting predefined criteria were discarded between rounds. Remaining items were discussed at consensus meetings, held separately with patients and professionals, where the COS was agreed. Data sources identified 2,990 outcomes, which were used to develop a 130-item questionnaire. Round 1 response rates were moderate but subsequently improved to above 75% for other rounds. After rounds 2 and 3, 81 and 14 items were discarded, respectively, leaving 35 items for discussion at consensus meetings. The final COS included nine items: "weight," "diabetes status," "cardiovascular risk," "overall quality of life (QOL)," "mortality," "technical complications of the specific operation," "any re-operation/re-intervention," "dysphagia/regurgitation," and "micronutrient status." The main limitation of this study was that it was based in the United Kingdom only.

conclusionsThe COS is recommended to be used as a minimum in all trials of bariatric and metabolic surgery. Adoption of the COS will improve data synthesis and the value of research data. Future work will establish methods for the measurement of the outcomes in the COS.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelAttitude to HealthBariatric SurgeryHumansPatientsSurgeonsUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID27898680
PMCPMC5127500
OpenAlexW2559735388

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.