ArticleBMJ open2017
Influence of social deprivation on provision of bariatric surgery: 10-year comparative ecological study between two UK specialist centres.
Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Socioeconomic deprivation is associated with worse in-hospital survival after isolated coronary artery bypass grafting in the UK.Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2025Article
- The Association between Bariatric Surgery Outcomes and Socioeconomic Deprivation.Obesity surgery · 2025Article
- Factors associated with bariatric surgery rates in federative units in Brazil.Revista de saude publica · 2023Article
- 30-Day Morbidity and Mortality of Bariatric Surgery During the COVID-19 Pandemic: a Multinational Cohort Study of 7704 Patients from 42 Countries.Obesity surgery · 2021Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the effect of residential location and socioeconomic deprivation on the provision of bariatric surgery.
designRetrospective cross-sectional ecological study.
settingPatients resident local to one of two specialist bariatric units, in different regions of the UK, who received obesity surgery between 2003 and 2013.
methodsDemographic data were collected from prospectively collected databases. Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD 2010) was used as a measure of socioeconomic status. Obesity prevalences were obtained from Public Health England (2006). Patients were split into three IMD tertiles (high, median, low) and also tertiles of time. A generalised linear model was generated for each time period to investigate the effect of socioeconomic deprivation on the relationship between bariatric case count and prevalence of obesity. We used these to estimate surgical intervention provided in each population in each period at differing levels of deprivation.
resultsData were included from 1163 bariatric cases (centre 1-414, centre 2-749). Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were calculated to measure the associations between predictor and response variables. Associations were highly non-linear and changed over the 10-year study period. In general, the relationship between surgical case volume and obesity prevalence has weakened over time, with high volumes becoming less associated with prevalence of obesity. DISCUSSION: As bariatric services have matured, the associations between demand and supply factors have changed. Socioeconomic deprivation is not apparently a barrier to service provision more recently, but the positive relationships between obesity and surgical volume we would expect to find are absent. This suggests that interventions are not being taken up in the areas of need. We recommend a more detailed national analysis of the relationship between supply side and demand side factors in the provision of bariatric surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.