Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32286011›Full record

ReviewObesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity2020

Comparative effectiveness of bariatric surgeries in patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Li Ding, Yuxin Fan, Hui Li, Yalan Zhang, Dongwang Qi, Shaofang Tang, Jingqiu Cui, Qing He, Chuanjun Zhuo, Ming Liu

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative StudyReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Review in Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
10.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 89 citations in OpenAlex.

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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Li DingDepartment of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Tianjin Medical University General Hospital, Tianjin, China.
Yuxin FanDepartment of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Tianjin Medical University General Hospital, Tianjin, China.
Hui LiDepartment of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Tianjin Medical University General Hospital, Tianjin, China.
Yalan ZhangDepartment of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Tianjin Medical University General Hospital, Tianjin, China.
Dongwang QiDepartment of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Tianjin Medical University General Hospital, Tianjin, China.
Shaofang TangDepartment of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Tianjin Medical University General Hospital, Tianjin, China.
Jingqiu CuiDepartment of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Tianjin Medical University General Hospital, Tianjin, China.
Qing HeDepartment of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Tianjin Medical University General Hospital, Tianjin, China.
Chuanjun ZhuoDepartment of School of Mental Health, Jining Medical University, Jining, China.ORCID 0000-0002-3793-550X
Ming LiuDepartment of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Tianjin Medical University General Hospital, Tianjin, China.
Tianjin Medical University General Hospital · CNJining Medical University · CN

Funding

National Key R&D Program of China 2019YFA0802502National Natural Science Foundation of China 81620108004National Natural Science Foundation of China 81830025National Natural Science Foundation of China 81871052Tianjin Municipal Science and Technology Commission 17JCZDJC35700Tianjin Municipal Science and Technology Commission 17ZXMFSY00150Tianjin Municipal Science and Technology Commission 19JCQNJC11800
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed to determine the hierarchies of different bariatric surgeries in patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), in terms of diabetes remission and cardiometabolic outcomes. Seventeen RCTs and six bariatric surgeries, including single anastomosis (mini) gastric bypass (mini-GBP), biliopancreatic diversion without duodenal switch (BPD), laparoscopic-adjustable gastric banding (LAGB), laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG), Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGBP), greater curvature plication (GCP) and nonsurgical treatments (NST) were included. Mini-GBP, BPD, LSG, RYGBP and LAGB (from best to worst), as compared with NST, were all significantly associated with the remission of T2DM. For the follow-up period > 3 years, BPD, mini-GBP, RYGBP and LSG (from best to worst) were significantly superior to NST in achieving the remission of T2DM. For secondary outcomes, the overall ranking for bariatric surgeries was RYGBP > BPD > LSG > LAGB after comprehensively weighting glucose, weight, systolic and diastolic pressure, total cholesterol, triglycerides, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). Mini-GBP has the greatest probability of achieving diabetes remission in adults with obesity and T2DM, yet BPD was the most effective in long-term diabetes remission. RYGBP appears to be the most favourable alternative treatment to manage patients with cardiometabolic conditions.

Indexed as

Bariatric SurgeryDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2FemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedObesityRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment Outcomebariatric surgeriescardiometabolic outcomediabetes remissionnetwork meta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID32286011
PMCPMC7379237
OpenAlexW3016028040

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.