SynthesisInternational journal of obesity (2005)2026
Current evidence and future perspectives on magnet-assisted bariatric surgery (MABS): a systematic 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. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Magnetic vs stapled technique in jejuno-ileal bipartition: one-year outcomes.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
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
backgroundMagnet-assisted bariatric surgery (MABS) represents a novel advancement in minimally invasive surgical techniques. It addresses challenges associated with obesity-related anatomical complexities, such as hepatomegaly and fatty liver disease, by enhancing surgical exposure and site visualization.
objectivesThis systematic review aimed to: (1) compare the efficacy of MABS and conventional bariatric surgery for weight loss and postoperative outcomes; (2) assess their safety profiles; and (3) evaluate perioperative recovery, hospital stay, and patient-reported outcomes like quality of life and satisfaction.
methodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, Web of science, Google scholar and Cochrane databases. Data were extracted and synthesized to provide quantitative assessment of MABS's performance.
resultsA total of 12 articles comprising 1305 participants were included. The findings confirmed MABS's feasibility and safety, with significant advantages across varying BMI ranges. Notable benefits included improved surgical exposure, shorter or comparable operative times, reduced postoperative pain, shorter hospital stays, low complication rates and no procedure-related mortality.
conclusionMABS demonstrated strong potential as an innovative tool in minimally invasive bariatric surgery, offering significant benefits for both patients and surgical teams. Its ability to address obesity-related challenges and enhance surgical outcomes supports its continued use and refinement. Future research should focus on stratified analyses, long-term outcomes, and economic evaluations to establish standardized criteria for patient selection and expand its applicability to other minimally invasive procedures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41315751What 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.