Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30021518›Full record

ArticleBMC gastroenterology2018

Design of the Weight-loss Endoscopy Trial (WET): a multi-center, randomized, controlled trial comparing weight loss in endoscopically implanted duodenal-jejunal bypass liners vs. intragastric balloons vs. a sham procedure.

Marcus Hollenbach, Christiane Prettin, Felix Gundling, Wolfgang Schepp, Jochen Seufert, Jürgen Stein, Thomas Rösch, Jens Aberle, Jürgen Feisthammel, David Petroff and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in BMC gastroenterology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
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

11 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Marcus HollenbachDepartment of Medicine, Neurology and Dermatology; Division of Gastroenterology and Rheumatology, University of Leipzig, Liebigstrasse 20, D-04103, Leipzig, Germany. marcus.hollenbach@web.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2654-3164
Christiane PrettinClinical Trial Center Leipzig, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
Felix GundlingClinic for Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Gastrointestinal Oncology; Bogenhausen Clinic, Munich, Germany.
Wolfgang ScheppClinic for Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Gastrointestinal Oncology; Bogenhausen Clinic, Munich, Germany.
Jochen SeufertClinic for Internal Medicine II; Division of Endocrinology and Diabetology, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Jürgen SteinClinic for Internal Medicine; Division of Gastroenterology; Sachsenhausen Clinic, Frankfurt, Germany.
Thomas RöschClinic for Interdisciplinary Endoscopy; Center for Radiology and Endoscopy, University of Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Jens AberleClinic for Endocrinology, Diabetology, Adiopsity and Lipids, University of Hamburg- Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Jürgen FeisthammelDepartment of Medicine, Neurology and Dermatology; Division of Gastroenterology and Rheumatology, University of Leipzig, Liebigstrasse 20, D-04103, Leipzig, Germany.
David PetroffClinical Trial Center Leipzig, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
Albrecht HoffmeisterDepartment of Medicine, Neurology and Dermatology; Division of Gastroenterology and Rheumatology, University of Leipzig, Liebigstrasse 20, D-04103, Leipzig, Germany.
University Hospital Leipzig · DELeipzig University · DEMünchen Klinik Bogenhausen · DEUniversität Hamburg · DEKrankenhaus Sachsenhausen · DEUniversity of Freiburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundObesity is a global problem leading to reduced life expectancy, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes and many types of cancer. Even people willing to accept treatment only achieve a mean weight loss of about 5 kg using commercial weight loss programs. Surgical interventions, e.g. sleeve gastrectomy or gastric bypass are effective but accompanied by risk of serious complications and side effects. Less invasive endoscopic procedures mainly comprise the intragastric balloon (IB) and the duodenal-jejunal bypass liner (DJBL). To date, a randomized comparison between these devices has not been undertaken or shown to be superior to a sham procedure.

methodsWe designed a multi-center, randomized, patient and assessor-blinded, controlled trial comparing weight loss in endoscopically implanted IB vs. DJBL vs. a sham procedure. A total of 150 patients with a BMI > 35 kg/m DISCUSSION: This trial could help to identify the most effective and safest endoscopic device, thus determining the new standard procedure for endoscopic bariatric treatment.

trial registration16th January 2017. DRKS00011036. Funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG).

Indexed as

Gastric BalloonGastric BypassGastroscopyWeight LossAdultDouble-Blind MethodDuodenumHumansJejunumMulticenter Studies as TopicObesity, MorbidPostoperative ComplicationsProspective StudiesRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignTreatment OutcomeBypass linerDiabetesEndoscopyIntragastric balloonObesityWeight loss

Identifiers

PMID30021518
PMCPMC6052668
OpenAlexW2884137224

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.