Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31834563›Full record

SynthesisObesity surgery2020

A Comprehensive Comparison of LRYGB and LSG in Obese Patients Including the Effects on QoL, Comorbidities, Weight Loss, and Complications: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Zhihao Hu, Junfeng Sun, Ruixin Li, Zhuoyin Wang, Hengxuan Ding, Tianyu Zhu, Guojun Wang

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Obesity surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
8.0field-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, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 87 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Endoscopic sleeve gastrectomyWorld journal of gastrointestinal pharmacology and therapeutics · 2025
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Zhihao HuDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, NO.1 Jianshe East Road, Zhengzhou, 450052, Henan, China.
Junfeng SunDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, NO.1 Jianshe East Road, Zhengzhou, 450052, Henan, China.
Ruixin LiDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, NO.1 Jianshe East Road, Zhengzhou, 450052, Henan, China.
Zhuoyin WangDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, NO.1 Jianshe East Road, Zhengzhou, 450052, Henan, China.
Hengxuan DingDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, NO.1 Jianshe East Road, Zhengzhou, 450052, Henan, China.
Tianyu ZhuDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, NO.1 Jianshe East Road, Zhengzhou, 450052, Henan, China.
Guojun WangDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, NO.1 Jianshe East Road, Zhengzhou, 450052, Henan, China. fccwanggj@zzu.edu.cn.ORCID 0000-0003-0712-0761
First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo systematically and comprehensively evaluate the differences between laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) versus sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) in obese patients.

methodsA systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from inception to December 2018. The meta-analysis was performed by the RevMan 5.3 software.

resultsTwenty-three articles with 7443 patients were included. In short term (< 3 years), LRYGB was superior to LSG in terms of improving comorbidities (T2D, odds ratio (OR) 1.93, 1.06-3.52, P < 0.05, hypertension, OR 1.59, 1.08-2.34, P < 0.05, dyslipidemia, OR 1.61, 1.05-2.46, P < 0.05), but there were no differences in the midterm and long term. Quality of life (QoL) after bariatric surgery was included, but no differences were observed in the QoL after LRYGB or LSG (gastrointestinal quality of life index (GIQLI) and Moorehead-Ardelt quality of life questionnaire (M-A-Q), P > 0.05). LRYGB achieved a higher EWL% than LSG (after 3 years, WMD 5.48, 0.13-10.84. P < 0.05; after 5 years, WMD 4.55, 1.04-8.05, P < 0.05) in long term, but no significant differences were found during 0.25- to 2.0-year follow-up. The rate of early and late complications was much higher in LRYGB than in LSG (early complications, OR = 2.11, 95% CI = 1.53-2.91, P < 0.001; late complications, OR = 2.60, 95% CI = 1.93-3.49, P < 0.001).

conclusionsThis meta-analysis showed that LRYGB was more effective than LSG in comorbidities' resolution or improvement in short term. For weight loss, LRYGB had better long-term effects than LSG. In addition, no differences were observed in the quality of life after LRYGB or LSG. LRYGB was associated with more complications than LSG.

Indexed as

GastrectomyGastric BypassAdultComorbidityFemaleHumansLaparoscopyMaleMiddle AgedObesity, MorbidPostoperative ComplicationsQuality of LifeSurveys and QuestionnairesTreatment OutcomeWeight LossLaparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypassLaparoscopic sleeve gastrectomyObesity surgeryThree-stage analysis

Identifiers

PMID31834563
PMCPMC7347514
OpenAlexW2994641152

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.