Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33591446›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2022

One anastomosis gastric bypass versus Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a 30-day follow-up review.

Salvatore Docimo, Jie Yang, Xiaoyue Zhang, Aurora Pryor, Konstantinos Spaniolas

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Evaluation of patients on immunosuppressants undergoing sleeve gastrectomy, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, and duodenal switch: analysis of 19,414 patients.Surgery for obesity and related diseases : official journal of the American Society for Bariatric Surgery · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. 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.

Salvatore DocimoDepartment of Surgery, Renaissance School of Medicine at Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, USA. salvatore.docimo@stonybrookmedicine.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-3329-5699
Jie YangDepartment of Family, Population & Preventive Medicine, Renaissance School of Medicine at Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, USA.
Xiaoyue ZhangDepartment of Family, Population & Preventive Medicine, Renaissance School of Medicine at Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, USA.
Aurora PryorDepartment of Surgery, Renaissance School of Medicine at Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, USA.
Konstantinos SpaniolasDepartment of Surgery, Renaissance School of Medicine at Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOne anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) type procedures have been widely adopted outside the United States. International experience of OAGB commonly suggests improved early postoperative safety with OAGB over Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). This study aims to report on the early experience with OAGB in Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) accredited centers, and compare with RYGB in terms of complication rates.

methodsThe MBSAQIP public use files from 2015 to 2018 were used to identify adult patients who underwent primary OAGB and RYGB. Propensity score analysis was used to estimate the marginal population-average differences between OAGB and RYGB patients. Based on the matched samples, McNemar's tests and Wilcoxon signed rank test were carried out for binary and continuous outcomes. P-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

resultsPropensity score matching analysis resulted in 279 matched pairs for OAGB and RYGB. Twelve OAGB patients (4.3%) experienced a complication; 3 of them (1.1%) were diagnosed with anastomotic leaks. Compared to 14 (5%) of RYGB patients experiencing a complication; 5 (1.8%) were diagnosed with anastomotic leaks. Reintervention, reoperation and readmission rates for OAGB were 2.5%, 3.2% and 5%, compared to 1.8%, 1.8%, and 3.2% for RYGB. DISCUSSION: Our study supports previous data that suggests OAGB has a similar early safety profile compared to RYGB and perioperative risks of OAGB should not be of a concern regarding its adoption. Conversely, OAGB does not seem to be associated with an improved safety profile over RYGB.

Indexed as

Bariatric SurgeryGastric BypassObesity, MorbidAdultFollow-Up StudiesHumansRetrospective StudiesWeight LossMetabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP)One anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB)Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB)

Identifiers

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.