SynthesisInternational journal of obesity (2005)2026
Volume‒outcome relationships in bariatric surgery: a rapid review.
Synthesis in International journal of obesity (2005), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe treatment of obesity is complex and requires long-term multidisciplinary care. While behavioral, pharmacological and psychological therapies are integral, bariatric surgery remains the most effective intervention. Therapeutic success is influenced by factors such as comorbidities and potentially by the experience of the treatment facilities. This rapid review evaluates the evidence of volume-outcome associations in bariatric surgery, focusing on the endpoint of mortality.
methodsWe performed a rapid review of the literature published after 2000, including adult patients (≥18 years) who underwent bariatric surgery for weight loss, or weight loss and diabetes management. Searches across EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed, and Cochrane Trials yielded 3540 records. The primary outcome was mortality; secondary outcomes included complications, morbidity and hospital stay. Mortality results were stratified by type of mortality and synthesized according to volume type (hospital or surgeon). Study quality was assessed using the ISPOR and ROBINS-E tools. An additional synthesis was conducted for studies above a quality score cutoff.
resultsThirty-six studies met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 12 studies examined the association between hospital volume and mortality, and five studies focused on surgeon volume. Eight of the hospital volume studies and four of the surgeon volume studies reported a positive association with reduced mortality; some showed mixed results. Most studies also linked higher volumes to fewer complications and shorter hospital stays. However, the focus was predominantly on hospital volume and short-term mortality, with limited evaluations of long-term outcomes or weight loss success. Overall study quality varied, with noted limitations including arbitrary volume thresholds.
conclusionHigher hospital and surgeon volumes were associated with lower short-term mortality, fewer complications and shorter hospital stays. The association was more pronounced in higher-quality studies. Future research should aim to standardize volume definitions to improve comparability and support policy efforts to centralize care and enhance patient outcomes.
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.