Trial reportObesity surgery2024
LSG vs OAGB: 7-Year Follow-up Data of a Randomised Control Trial and Comparative Outcome Based on BAROS Score.
Trial report in Obesity surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Primary and Revisional One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass: A Systematic Review and GRADE-Based IFSO Position Statement.Obesity surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- OAGB 2025. A systematic review with meta-analysis of indications and results for primary procedures at 5+ years.Updates in surgery · 2025Pooled it
- [Metabolic/bariatric surgery is effective : What is the evidence regarding hard endpoints and long-term outcomes?]Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- The Safety and Efficacy of Laparoscopic One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass as a Revision for Laparoscopic Adjustable Gastric Banding and Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy.Obesity surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aims to evaluate and compare long-term results of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) and one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) based on bariatric analysis reporting and outcome system (BAROS) score. MATERIALS AND
methodsPatients operated for morbid obesity between 2013 and 2015 were randomised to LSG and OAGB groups. Based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, 201 patients (100 LSG and 101 OAGB) were analysed for changes in total body weight (TBW), body mass index (BMI), percent excess weight loss (%EWL), percent total weight loss (%TWL), QoL (quality of life) scores, comorbidity resolution and outcome based on BAROS at 7 years.
resultsSixty-six LSG and 64 OAGB patients were followed up at 7 years. Mean pre-operative TBW and BMI were 119 ± 28.2 and 44.87 ± 7.71 for LSG group and 113.25 ± 23.74 and 44.71 ± 8.75 for OAGB group respectively. At 7 years after surgery, there was significant drop in mean TBW and BMI in both groups. Mean %EWL for LSG and OAGB patients was 50.78 ± 28.48 and 59.99 ± 23.32 and mean %TWL for LSG and OAGB patients was 23.22 ± 12.66 and 27.71 ± 12.27 respectively. Mean QoL scores at 7 years were significantly higher than the pre-operative scores and most of the patients in both groups had remission or improvement in their comorbidities. 68.76% OAGB patients had very good or excellent outcome on BAROS score while only 36.37% LSG patients had similar outcome.
conclusionsLSG and OAGB are successful bariatric procedures over the long term. OAGB outperforms LSG and has significantly higher %EWL and %TWL over the long term.
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.