Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36160820›Full record

ArticleVisceral medicine2022

Computed Tomography Assessment of Gastric Band Slippage.

Jeremy R Burt, Madison R Kocher, Lauren Snider, Jeffrey Waltz, Jordan Heston Chamberlin, Gilberto J Aquino, Vincent Giovagnoli, Megan Mercer, Nicholas Feranec

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Visceral medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

9 authors.

Jeremy R BurtDepartment of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Cardiothoracic Division, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA.
Madison R KocherDepartment of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Cardiothoracic Division, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA.
Lauren SniderDepartment of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Cardiothoracic Division, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA.
Jeffrey WaltzDepartment of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Cardiothoracic Division, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA.
Jordan Heston ChamberlinDepartment of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Cardiothoracic Division, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA.
Gilberto J AquinoDepartment of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Cardiothoracic Division, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA.
Vincent GiovagnoliDepartment of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Cardiothoracic Division, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA.
Megan MercerDepartment of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Cardiothoracic Division, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA.
Nicholas FeranecAdventHealth Orlando, Orlando, Florida, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The purpose of this study was to develop and validate reliable computed tomography (CT) imaging criteria for the diagnosis of gastric band slippage. Material and Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 67 patients for gastric band slippage using CT. Of these, 14 had surgically proven gastric band slippage (study group), 22 had their gastric bands removed for reasons other than slippage (control group 1), and 31 did not require removal (control group 2). All of the studies were read independently by two radiologists in a blinded fashion. The "O" sign, phi angle, amount of inferior displacement from the esophageal hiatus, and gastric pouch size were used to create CT diagnostic criteria. Standard statistical methods were used. Results: There was good overall interobserver agreement for diagnosis of gastric band slippage using CT diagnostic criteria (kappa = 0.83). Agreement was excellent for the "O" sign (kappa = 0.93) and phi angle (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.976). The "O" sign, inferior displacement from the hiatus >3.5 cm, and gastric pouch volume >55 cm Conclusion: All four imaging parameters were useful in evaluating for gastric band slippage on CT, with good interobserver agreement. Of these parameters, enlarged gastric pouch size was most correlated with slippage and abnormal phi angle had the highest NPV.

Indexed as

Computed tomographyGastric pouchLaparoscopic adjustable gastric bandingO signSlippage

Identifiers

PMID36160820
PMCPMC9421695

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.