ArticleSurgical endoscopy2025
The bariatric frailty score as a superior scoring system compared to the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score in prediction of serious complications after bariatric surgery procedures.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative efficacy and safety of surgical techniques for inguinal hernia repair in elderly patients: a network meta-analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Review
- Complications After Bariatric Surgery: Insights from a 14-Year Single-Institutional Study Without Fistula.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe objective of this study was to compare the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, the bariatric frailty score (BFS), and functional status of the patients who undergoing bariatric surgery in prediction of short-term outcomes characterized by Clavien-Dindo (≥ 3).
methodsUsing the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) database, all adult patients who underwent sleeve gastrectomy (SG), gastric bypass (RYGB) and Duodenal switch (DS) between 2016 and 2019 were included. The bariatric frailty score (BFS) (14 variables of the Canadian Study of Health and Aging-Frailty Index were mapped onto nine variables of MBSAQIP to derive a score (0-9) which were classified as Not Frail (0), Pre-Frail (1-2), and Frail (≥ 3)), the ASA score and functional status of patients were used. Only patients with ASA score ≥ 3 were included. Logistic regression was performed and then used to derive change in AUC from the base model (including age, sex, race/ethnicity and operative time) to compare the predictability of serious complications between ASA, BFS and functional status.
resultsA total of 689,198 patients were included. For SG, the bariatric frailty score showed stronger predictability value compared with the ASA and functional status, with AUCs of 0.589 for BFS, 0.579 for ASA score and 0.593 for functional status, respectively. A similar pattern was observed for RYGB. The results for DS were not consistent due to small sample size for this procedure.
conclusionsOur study showed that the BFS is slightly better at predicting CD ≥ 3 complications after bariatric surgery in comparison to more commonly used ASA score or functional status, although, none of the tested risk models performed well.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40442359What 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.