ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2026
Cost-effectiveness analysis of FundoRing versus standard one-anastomosis gastric bypass: up to 3-year results of a randomized controlled trial.
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The FundoRing modification of one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) has demonstrated superior clinical outcomes compared with standard OAGB in patients with metabolic syndrome. However, the cost-effectiveness of this innovative technique remains unclear. This study aimed to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of FundoRing versus standard OAGB using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and the cost-effectiveness plane. Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted alongside a randomized controlled trial including 1000 patients ( Results: At the last follow-up (median 28 months), the FundoRing group demonstrated significantly higher effectiveness (94.2% vs. 86.7% achieving BMI <30 kg/m Conclusion: FundoRing modification of OAGB is a more cost-effective strategy than standard OAGB within the studied population and single-center setting. The reduction in late postoperative complications generates substantial healthcare savings while achieving superior clinical outcomes. These findings provide economic evidence to support the use of the FundoRing technique in bariatric surgery. Multi-center studies are needed to confirm generalizability.
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.