ArticleObesity surgery2017
A Longitudinal Analysis of Short-Term Costs and Outcomes in a Regionalized Center of Excellence Bariatric Care System.
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 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Volume‒outcome relationships in bariatric surgery: a rapid review.International journal of obesity (2005) · 2026Pooled it
- Clinical, Economic, and System-Level Outcomes of Bariatric Surgery in Adults: Protocol for a Systematic Review.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Article
- Bariatric surgery in Mexico: training, practice and surgical trends.Updates in surgery · 2021Article
- Factors that predict 30-day readmission after bariatric surgery: experience of a publicly funded Canadian centre.Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie · 2020Article
- A Longitudinal Analysis of Wait Times for Bariatric Surgery in a Publicly Funded, Regionalized Bariatric Care System.Obesity surgery · 2020Article
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
backgroundEvaluating how morbidity and costs evolve for new bariatric centers is vital to understanding the expected length of time required to reach optimal outcomes and cost efficiencies. Accordingly, the objective of this study was to evaluate how morbidity and costs changed longitudinally during the first 5 years of a regionalized center of excellence system.
methodsThis was a longitudinal analysis of the first 5 years of a bariatric center of excellence system. The main outcomes of interest were all-cause morbidity and cost for the index admission. Predictors of interest included patient demographics, comorbidities, annual hospital and surgeon volume, fellowship teaching center status, and year of procedure. Hierarchical regression models were used to determine predictors of morbidity and costs.
resultsProcedures done in 2012 (OR 0.65, 95%CI 0.52-0.79; p < 0.001), 2013 (OR 0.63, 95%CI 0.51-0.78; p < 0.001), and 2014 (OR 0.53, 95%CI 0.43-0.65; p < 0.001) all conferred a significantly lower odds of morbidity when compared to the initial 2009/2010 years. Surgeon volume was associated with a decreased odds of morbidity as for each increase in 25 bariatric cases per year the odds of all-cause morbidity was 0.94 lower (95%CI 0.88-1.00; p = 0.04). There was no significant variation at the hospital or surgeon level in perioperative outcomes.
conclusionThis study determined that volume was important even for high resource, fellowship-trained surgeons. It also found a decrease in morbidity over time for new centers. Lastly, there was little variation in outcomes across hospitals and surgeons suggesting that strict accreditation standards can help to ensure high quality across hospital sites.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28502029What 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.