Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30554304›Full record

SynthesisObesity surgery2019

Lack of Standard Definitions of Primary and Secondary (Non)responders After Primary Gastric Bypass and Gastric Sleeve: a Systematic Review.

Daniëlle S Bonouvrie, Martine Uittenbogaart, Arijan A P M Luijten, François M H van Dielen, Wouter K G Leclercq

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Obesity surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Towards precision medicine in bariatric surgery prescription.Reviews in endocrine & metabolic disorders · 2023
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Daniëlle S BonouvrieMáxima Medical Center, Eindhoven/Veldhoven, The Netherlands. danielle.bonouvrie@mmc.nl.ORCID 0000-0003-3813-1930
Martine UittenbogaartMáxima Medical Center, Eindhoven/Veldhoven, The Netherlands.
Arijan A P M LuijtenMáxima Medical Center, Eindhoven/Veldhoven, The Netherlands.
François M H van DielenMáxima Medical Center, Eindhoven/Veldhoven, The Netherlands.
Wouter K G LeclercqMáxima Medical Center, Eindhoven/Veldhoven, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Lack of standard definitions of primary and secondary (non)responders after RYGB and SG makes it impossible to compare the literature. The aim was to analyze the different definitions used. MEDLINE® was searched for literature published between 01-07-2014 and 01-07-2017 concerning (1) patients who received a primary RYGB or SG and (2) the outcomes of primary and secondary (non)responders. One hundred twelve out of 650 papers were eligible. Forty out of 47 papers described a definition of weight loss success. Sixty-seven out of 112 papers mentioned weight loss failure of which 42 described a definition, in total 23 different definitions. Weight regain was mentioned in 77 papers; only 21 papers provided a definition. The recent literature regarding definitions of these outcomes is highly inconsistent. To compare the literature international consensus is required.

Indexed as

GastrectomyGastric BypassTreatment FailureHumansObesity, MorbidTerminology as TopicWeight GainBariatric surgeryGastric sleeveRoux-en-Y gastric bypassWeight loss failureWeight loss successWeight regain

Identifiers

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.