ArticleObesity surgery2018
Validation of the Alterable Weight Loss Metric in Morbidly Obese Patients Undergoing Gastric Bypass in Korea.
Article in Obesity surgery, 2018. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Study on weight loss outcomes after bariatric surgery to determine a metric least influenced by preoperative BMI.International journal of obesity (2005) · 2023Article
- Article
- Reporting Weight Loss 2021: Position Statement of the Dutch Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (DSMBS).Obesity surgery · 2021Review
- Seeking an Initial-Weight-Independent Metric in a Mediterranean Cohort of Gastric Bypass Patients: the %AWL Revisited.Obesity surgery · 2021Article
- A total weight loss of 25% shows better predictivity in evaluating the efficiency of bariatric surgery.International journal of obesity (2005) · 2021Article
- Letter: Factors Predicting Weight Loss after "Sleeve Gastrectomy with Loop Duodenojejunal Bypass" Surgery for Obesity (J Obes Metab Syndr 2020;29:208-14).Journal of obesity & metabolic syndrome · 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
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPercentage of excess weight loss (%EWL) is the most common metric used after bariatric surgery. However, there has been consistent argument against its use since it varies significantly by initial body mass index (BMI). This study aimed to validate the newly suggested percentage of alterable weight loss (%AWL) metric in Korean patients.
methodsA retrospective review of the prospectively established database at Soonchunhyang University Seoul Hospital identified 165 patients who underwent primary laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and had at least 2-year follow-up weight loss results after surgery. Patients were classified into subgroups based on initial BMI, and their weight loss results expressed as BMI, %EWL, %AWL, and percentage of total weight loss (%TWL) were compared in terms of nadir weight and weight loss trajectory.
resultsThe study cohort included 27 male (16.4%) and 138 female (83.6%) patients with a mean baseline BMI of 38.1 ± 5.4. Nadir weight was achieved at mean 24.1 ± 10.6 months postoperatively. Female patients required significantly longer to achieve nadir weight than male patients (16.2 vs. 22.4 months, p = 0.001), and they achieved less weight loss expressed as nadir BMI, %EWL, and %AWL. Of these metrics, only %AWL was not significantly influenced by preoperative BMI and showed the least variation (25.2%) for reporting weight loss.
conclusionThe AWL metric can report weight loss regardless of baseline BMI in Korean patients undergoing RYGB; however, it must be validated in a larger population involving multiple centers from the Asia-Pacific area before being used clinically.
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.