Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40014762›Full record

ArticleHealth (London, England : 1997)2026

Sabotage, feeding and collusion after bariatric surgery. And the winner is . . .? A psychodynamic and systemic perspective on sabotage and feeding after bariatric surgery by means of a case series analysis.

Friedrich Stiefel, Laurent Michaud, Céline Bourquin-Sachse, Sophia Quirke-McFarlane, Jane Ogden

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health (London, England : 1997), 2026. 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

5 authors.

Friedrich StiefelUniversity Lausanne and University Hospital Lausanne, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-0326-7918
Laurent MichaudUniversity Lausanne and University Hospital Lausanne, Switzerland.
Céline Bourquin-SachseUniversity Lausanne and University Hospital Lausanne, Switzerland.
Sophia Quirke-McFarlaneUniversity of Surrey, UK.
Jane OgdenUniversity of Surrey, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the context of bariatric surgery, negative social support has recently been conceptualized in terms of sabotage, feeding behaviour and collusion undermining a person's effort to lose or maintain weight. While sabotage and feeding behaviour are thought to be motivated consciously, collusion is understood as a bond, by which protagonists are tied together sharing an unresolved and unconscious psychological issue such as dependency, domination and submission, and so on. Drawing upon a systemic and psychodynamic understanding, we analysed interviews with patients (

Indexed as

Bariatric SurgeryFeeding BehaviorSocial SupportAdultFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle Agedbariatric surgerycollusionfeedingsabotage

Identifiers

PMID40014762
PMCPMC12741170

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.