ArticleObesity surgery2026
Weight-Loss and Metabolic Outcomes of a Swallowable Fluid-Filled versus an Adjustable Intragastric Balloon in Adults with Overweight or Obesity: A Retrospective Single-Center Study with 12-Month Weight Outcomes.
Article in Obesity surgery, 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
introductionIntragastric balloons (IGBs) improve weight and metabolic parameters, but structurally different devices are rarely compared within one center and are conventionally assessed at very different time points. We compared a swallowable fluid-filled IGB with an adjustable IGB, both at the end of treatment and at a common 12-month horizon. MATERIALS AND
methodsRetrospective single-center analysis of adults completing IGB treatment. Weight, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting glucose, lipid profile and blood pressure were recorded before and at the end of treatment; weight was also recorded 12 months after placement. The primary outcome was percentage total weight loss (%TWL) at end of treatment. Between-device differences were adjusted for baseline value, age, sex, diabetes and dyslipidemia and by propensity weighting, and metabolic comparisons were corrected for multiple testing.
resultsOf 357 patients treated, 239 were analyzed (133 swallowable, 106 adjustable; 76.6% women); attrition before analysis was far higher in the adjustable group (48.5% vs. 11.9%). Both devices reduced weight, HbA1c and atherogenic lipids and raised high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. At end of treatment the adjustable balloon achieved greater %TWL (10.2 ± 4.2% over ≈ 12 months vs. 8.9 ± 4.0% over ≈ 4 months; adjusted difference 1.27%, 95% CI 0.20 to 2.34). At 12 months, swallowable-group %TWL had fallen to 6.6 ± 7.1% and the difference widened to 3.6% (95% CI 2.2 to 5.1). No between-device difference in metabolic change survived correction for multiple testing. A tipping-point analysis showed the end-of-treatment difference to be fragile to the observed attrition, whereas the 12-month difference was not.
conclusionBoth IGBs produced meaningful weight loss and metabolic improvement, but comparison between them is strongly time-dependent: the swallowable balloon's short-term advantage per month of dwell was not maintained at 12 months. Incomplete adjustable-group follow-up means the device comparison should be read as an upper bound. Metabolic improvement was similar between devices and not proportional to weight loss.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42802301What 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.