ReviewCureus2026
Postoperative Behavioral and Psychological Factors Associated With Recurrent Weight Gain After Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recurrent weight gain after metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) can erode long-term benefit, and many proposed correlates are modifiable. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement. PubMed/Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar were searched, with citation searching, for studies of adults relating postoperative behavioral or psychological exposures to weight regain after a postoperative reference point. The databases yielded 1212 records and other sources yielded 12 (108 full texts assessed; 12 studies included); citation searching identified seven further studies, giving 19 studies (18 independent cohorts; 36 to 1278 participants). Risk of bias was appraised with Newcastle-Ottawa and Joanna Briggs Institute tools, and confidence in the evidence was rated with a structured approach informed by Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) domains. Random-effects meta-analysis (restricted maximum likelihood, with Hartung-Knapp confidence intervals as the principal inference) was performed when at least two independent studies reported the same construct, instrument family, and metric for comparable outcomes; other evidence was synthesized narratively. Two exposures met these criteria, each pooled from the same two studies (139 participants). For eating disinhibition, the pooled standardized mean difference was 0.81, but the Hartung-Knapp 95% confidence interval (CI) included no difference (-0.40 to 2.02; I² = 0%); for depressive symptoms, it was 0.11 (Hartung-Knapp 95% CI -0.93 to 1.14; I² = 0%). In the narrative synthesis, binge eating was associated with more regain in the largest prospective cohort, and four smaller studies agreed in direction. Lower activity levels or greater sedentary behavior were associated with greater regain in most reports, although one prospective accelerometry study found no association. Confidence was low or very low, and reverse causation could not be excluded. The review was not registered. These findings identify domains that may warrant consideration in postoperative assessment, but whether screening or modification reduces recurrent weight gain remains uncertain.
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.