Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28445566›Full record

ArticleJAMA surgery2017

Variation in Outcomes at Bariatric Surgery Centers of Excellence.

Andrew M Ibrahim, Amir A Ghaferi, Jyothi R Thumma, Justin B Dimick

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA surgery, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06299644 (Endoscopic Sleeve Gastroplasty Technique Comparison for Weight Loss Using the Endomina Plicating Device), which is not on this map. Cited by 50 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 4 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.

NCT06299644 nanot yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Endoscopic Sleeve Gastroplasty Technique Comparison for Weight Loss Using the Endomina Plicating Device: A Randomized Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorBrigham and Women's HospitalRan2026 to 2028Enrolled10ConditionsObesity, Obesity, Morbid, Metabolic Disease, Weight, BodyArmsEndoscopic Sleeve Gastroplasty - Belt and Suspenders, Endoscopic Sleeve Gastroplasty - Belt
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

50 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Volume‒outcome relationships in bariatric surgery: a rapid review.International journal of obesity (2005) · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Association between preoperative serum albumin levels with risk of death and postoperative complications after bariatric surgery: a retrospective cohort study.Surgery for obesity and related diseases : official journal of the American Society for Bariatric Surgery · 2022
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Andrew M IbrahimCenter for Healthcare Outcomes and Policy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Amir A GhaferiCenter for Healthcare Outcomes and Policy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Jyothi R ThummaCenter for Healthcare Outcomes and Policy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Justin B DimickCenter for Healthcare Outcomes and Policy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor2Surgical Innovation Editor, JAMA Surgery.

Funding

Evaluating Policies for Improving Surgical Care in the ElderlyR01AG039434 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI DIMICK, JUSTIN BRIGHAM · 2011 to 2019
$2.9M
Organizational Dynamics and Failure to Rescue After Major SurgeryK08HS023621 · AHRQ · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI GHAFERI, AMIR ABBAS · 2015 to 2019
$759k
AHRQ HHS K08 HS023621NIA NIH HHS R01 AG039434
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: In the United States, reports about perioperative complications associated with bariatric surgery led to the establishment of accreditation criteria for bariatric centers of excellence and many bariatric centers obtaining accreditation. Currently, most bariatric procedures occur at these centers, but to what extent they uniformly provide high-quality care remains unknown. Objective: To describe the variation in surgical outcomes across bariatric centers of excellence and the geographic availability of high-quality centers. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective review analyzed the claims data of 145 527 patients who underwent bariatric surgery at bariatric centers of excellence between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2013. Data were obtained from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project's State Inpatient Database. This database included unique hospital identification numbers in 12 states (Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Iowa, Massachusetts, Maryland, North Carolina, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Washington, and Wisconsin), allowing comparisons among 165 centers of excellence located in those states. Participants were identified using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes. Those included in the study cohort were patients with a primary diagnosis of morbid obesity and who underwent laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, open Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, laparoscopic gastric band placement, or laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. Excluded from the cohort were patients younger than 18 years or who had an abdominal malignant neoplasm. Data were analyzed July 1, 2016, through January 10, 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures: Risk-adjusted and reliability-adjusted serious complication rates within 30 days of the index operation were calculated for each center. Centers were stratified by geographic location and operative volume. Results: In this analysis of claims data from 145 527 patients, wide variation in quality was found across 165 bariatric centers of excellence, both nationwide and statewide. At the national level, the risk-adjusted and reliability-adjusted serious complication rates at each center varied 17-fold, ranging from 0.6% to 10.3%. At the state level, variation ranged from 2.1-fold (Wisconsin decile range, 1.5%-3.3%) to 9.5-fold (Nebraska decile range, 1.0%-10.3%). After dividing hospitals into quintiles of quality on the basis of their adjusted complication rates, 38 of 132 (28.8%) had a center in a higher quintile of quality located within the same hospital service area. Variation in rates of complications existed at centers with low volume (annual mean [SD] procedure volume, 156 [20] patients; complication range, 0.6%-6.4%; 9.8-fold variation), medium volume (annual mean [SD] procedure volume, 239 [27] patients; complication range, 0.6%-10.3%; 17.5-fold variation), and high volume (annual mean [SD] procedure volume, 448 [131] patients; complication range, 0.6%-4.9%; 7.5-fold variation). Conclusions and Relevance: Even among accredited bariatric surgery centers, wide variation exists in rates of postoperative serious complications across geographic location and operative volumes. Given that a large proportion of centers are geographically located near higher-performing centers, opportunities for improvement through regional collaboratives or selective referral should be considered.

Indexed as

AccreditationAdultBariatric SurgeryFemaleGastrectomyGastric BypassGastroplastyHospitals, High-VolumeHospitals, Low-VolumeHumansLaparoscopyMaleMiddle AgedObesity, MorbidPostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID28445566
PMCPMC5831459

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.