Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31290104›Full record

ReviewObesity surgery2019

Randomized Controlled Trial of One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass Versus Roux-En-Y Gastric Bypass for Obesity: Comparison of the YOMEGA and Taiwan Studies.

Wei-Jei Lee, Owaid M Almalki, Kong-Han Ser, Jung-Chien Chen, Yi-Chih Lee

Abstract readComparative StudyReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Obesity surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
8.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

45 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 80 citations in OpenAlex.

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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Wei-Jei LeeDepartment of Surgery, Min-Sheng General Hospital, No. 168, Chin Kuo Road, Taoyuan, Taiwan, Republic of China. wjlee_obessurg_tw@yahoo.com.tw.ORCID 0000-0001-7091-3006
Owaid M AlmalkiDepartment of Surgery, College of Medicine, Taif University, Taif, Saudi Arabia.
Kong-Han SerDepartment of Surgery, Min-Sheng General Hospital, No. 168, Chin Kuo Road, Taoyuan, Taiwan, Republic of China.
Jung-Chien ChenDepartment of Surgery, Min-Sheng General Hospital, No. 168, Chin Kuo Road, Taoyuan, Taiwan, Republic of China.
Yi-Chih LeeDepartment of International Business, Chien Hsin University of Science and Technology, Taoyuan City, Taiwan.
Min Sheng General Hospital · TWChien Hsin University of Science and Technology · TWTaif University · SA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe YOMEGA study (Y-study) was a randomized trial comparing one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). Here, we aim to compare the Y-study and our pioneer trial from Taiwan (T-study).

methodsData from the Y-study and the T-study were collected and compared.

resultsThe Y-study recruited 234 patients with a mean body mass index (BMI) of 43.9 and age of 43.5 years. The T-study recruited 80 patients with a similar mean BMI of 44.3 and mean age of 31.4 years. The studies had similar findings including (1) OAGB is easier and possibly safer procedure than RYGB. Both studies showed that OAGB had a shorter operation time than RYGB, but a lower surgical complication rate was only demonstrated in T-study. (2) Both procedures have similar weight loss but OAGB features better glycemic control than RYGB. Weight loss at 2 years after surgery was similar between two procedures, but OAGB reduced HbA1c to a greater degree than RYGB at 2 years in Y-study (- 2.3% vs. - 1.3%; p = 0.025). The resolution of the metabolic syndrome was 100% for both groups in the T-study. (3) OAGB carried a higher risk of malnutrition. OAGB had more malabsorptive problems with a lower hemoglobin level than RYGB at 2 years after surgery. Adverse malnutrition events occurred in nine (7.8%) OAGB patients in the Y-study. Four (3.4%) patients of OAGB received revision surgery in Y-study but none in T-study. (4) Bile reflux was noted in OAGB patients but did not influence quality of life or revision rate. Y-study found that bile in the gastric pouch was present in 16% of patients in the OAGB group versus none in the RYGB, but no inter-group difference in quality of life was detected. There was a trend for RYGB patients to experience more abdominal pain than OAGB.

conclusionsBoth studies showed that OAGB is a technically easier procedure and features better glycemic control than RYGB, but has a mal-absorptive effect. However, the bile reflux and abdominal pain controversies persisted.

Indexed as

Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicAbdominal PainAdultAnastomosis, SurgicalBile RefluxBlood GlucoseBody Mass IndexFemaleGastric BypassHumansMalabsorption SyndromesMaleMiddle AgedMulticenter Studies as TopicObesity, MorbidOperative TimeBlood GlucoseGastric bypassOAGBRYGBType 2 diabetes

Identifiers

PMID31290104
OpenAlexW2959372943

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.