Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29209749›Full record

ArticleDer Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen2018

[Quality indicators for metabolic and bariatric surgery in Germany : Evidence-based development of an indicator panel for the quality of results, indications and structure].

F Seyfried, H-J Buhr, C Klinger, T P Huettel, B Herbig, S Weiner, C Jurowich, A Dietrich

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. [Bariatric surgery: Expectations and therapeutic goals-a contradiction?]Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2018
    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

8 authors.

F SeyfriedKlinik für Allgemein‑, Viszeral‑, Gefäß- und Kinderchirurgie, Universitätsklinik Würzburg, Oberdürrbacherstr. 2, 97080, Würzburg, Deutschland. seyfried_f@ukw.de.
H-J BuhrHaus der Bundespressekonferenz, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Allgemein- und Viszeralchirurgie, Berlin, Deutschland.
C KlingerHaus der Bundespressekonferenz, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Allgemein- und Viszeralchirurgie, Berlin, Deutschland.
T P HuettelChirurgische Klinik München Bogenhausen, München, Deutschland.
B HerbigAdipositas Klinik, Schön Klinik Hamburg Eilbek, Hamburg, Deutschland.
S WeinerKrankenhaus Nordwest, Frankfurt am Main, Deutschland.
C JurowichKreisklinik Altötting, Altötting, Deutschland.
A DietrichKlinik und Poliklinik für Viszeral‑, Transplantations‑, Thorax- und Gefäßchirurgie, Bereich Bariatrische Chirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Leipzig, Leipzig, Deutschland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

An expert committee was appointed by the German Society for General and Visceral Surgery to develop a panel of appropriate quality indicators to collate the quality of results, indications and structure in metabolic and bariatric surgery. This entailed assimilating the available evidence (systematic literature search), results from the national registry of the society (StuDoQ|MBE) and specific socioeconomic aspects (e. g. severely limited access to metabolic and bariatric surgery in Germany). These quality parameters were to be incorporated into the national guidelines and the rules of procedure for certification in the future. The committee concluded that mortality, MTL30 and severe complications needing intervention (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3b) are suitable indicators to measure surgical outcome quality due to their relevance, scientific soundness and practicability. As a systematic follow-up is mandatory after bariatric surgery, a minimum follow-up quota is now required using reported quality of life data as an indicator of process quality. As intestinal bypass procedures have been shown to be superior in the treatment of type 2 diabetes, these procedures should be offered to eligible patients and also be performed. The proposed threshold values based on the results of the available literature and StuDoQ registry are to be considered as preliminary and need to be validated and adjusted if necessary in the future. The StuDoQ|MBE is considered a valuable tool to gather this information and also represents the appropriate infrastructure for the collation of relevant risk adjustors.

Indexed as

Bariatric SurgeryDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2Quality Indicators, Health CareData AccuracyGermanyHumansQuality of LifeAftercareBariatric surgeryComplications needing interventionMortalityMTL30

Identifiers

PMID29209749

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.