Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29492707›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2018

Implementation of mini gastric bypass in the Netherlands: early and midterm results from a high-volume unit.

J Apers, R Wijkmans, E Totte, M Emous

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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.

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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

J ApersFranciscus Gasthuis, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. j.apers@Franciscus.nl.
R WijkmansMCL Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands.
E TotteMCL Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands.
M EmousMCL Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands.
Medisch Centrum Leeuwarden · NLSint Franciscus Gasthuis · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMini gastric bypass (MGB) is a promising and attractive alternative bariatric procedure. In 2011, we introduced MGB in our high-volume bariatric unit. Subsequently, we evaluated short- and midterm results of this procedure.

methodsA prospective cohort of patients who underwent MGB between 2012 and 2013 was retrospectively evaluated.

resultsFrom 2012 to 2013, primary MGB was performed in 287 patients with a mean BMI of 42 kg/m

conclusionsAs a primary bariatric procedure, MGB is associated with good early and midterm results. MGB has the potential to become a significant alternative bariatric procedure. Correct technique is of extreme importance when performing MGB; therefore, the appointment of an experienced MGB surgeon as a guide when beginning to utilize this technique is advised.

Indexed as

AdultAgedFemaleGastric BypassHumansMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsObesity, MorbidOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesWeight LossYoung AdultBiliary refluxMini gastric bypassOne-anastomosis gastric bypassResultsTechnique

Identifiers

PMID29492707
OpenAlexW2790344634

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.