ArticleObesity surgery2020
Prevalence and Determinants of Nutritional Deficiencies at Mid-Term After Sleeve Gastrectomy.
Article in Obesity surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Nutritional status of Saudi obese patients undergoing laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, one-year follow-up study.The British journal of nutrition · 2024Observational
- Comparison of pregnancy outcomes after bariatric surgery by sleeve gastrectomy versus gastric bypass.European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X · 2024Article
- Nutritional Status, Selected Nutrients Intake, and Metabolic Disorders in Bariatric Surgery Patients.Nutrients · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSeveral studies reported a risk of nutritional deficiencies after sleeve gastrectomy (SG). Systematic long-term multivitamin (MV) supplementation after SG is recommended by guidelines but not followed in practice in France.
objectivesTo assess the determinants of nutritional status at 2 years or more after SG in patients treated or not with MV.
methodsNutritional parameters were prospectively recorded in our database from 2004. All patients who came back in our institution for follow-up at 2 years or more after SG were included. The last visit available was selected. Systematic MV was stopped at 1 year after SG except if there is risk of malnutrition. A deficiency was defined by a biological deficit or the need for a specific supplement, prescribed in accordance with biological deficit.
resultsOne hundred forty-seven patients were included with a mean follow-up of 44 ± 17 months: 39 were still taking MV and 108 had stopped MV. Caloric and protein intake was lower, and albumin deficiencies were more frequent in patients still taking MV, as expected. The total number of deficiencies was not significantly different before and after SG even in patients without MV (3.7 ± 1.8 vs. 3.5 ± 1.8), but patients without MV tended to have more group B vitamin deficiencies after surgery. The main determinants of postoperative deficiencies were preoperative concentrations.
conclusionNutritional deficiencies are not more common after than before SG, even among patients who stopped MV. The interest of targeted supplementation in patients with deficiencies rather than systematic supplementation after SG needs to be confirmed by randomized studies.
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.