Evidence mapPaperPMID 35137548Full record

SynthesisObesity (Silver Spring, Md.)2022

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, sleeve gastrectomy, or one-anastomosis gastric bypass? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials.

Isabelle Uhe, Jonathan Douissard, Michele Podetta, Mickael Chevallay, Christian Toso, Minoa Karin Jung, Jeremy Meyer

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Obesity (Silver Spring, Md.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
15.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

48 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 74 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Bariatric surgery in the Armed Forces: Reshaping the SHAPE!Medical journal, Armed Forces India · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Isabelle UheDivision of Digestive Surgery, University Hospitals of Geneva, Genève 14, Switzerland.
Jonathan DouissardDivision of Digestive Surgery, University Hospitals of Geneva, Genève 14, Switzerland.
Michele PodettaDivision of Digestive Surgery, University Hospitals of Geneva, Genève 14, Switzerland.
Mickael ChevallayDivision of Digestive Surgery, University Hospitals of Geneva, Genève 14, Switzerland.
Christian TosoDivision of Digestive Surgery, University Hospitals of Geneva, Genève 14, Switzerland.
Minoa Karin JungDivision of Digestive Surgery, University Hospitals of Geneva, Genève 14, Switzerland.
Jeremy MeyerDivision of Digestive Surgery, University Hospitals of Geneva, Genève 14, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-3381-9146

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis study aimed to determine which bariatric procedure allows patients to obtain the best weight-loss outcomes and a remission of type 2 diabetes.

methodsDatabases were searched for randomized-controlled trials comparing Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) with sleeve gastrectomy (SG) or one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB). The mean difference (MD) or the relative risk was determined.

resultsTwenty-five randomized-controlled trials were analyzed. Excess weight loss (EWL, percentage) was greater for RYGB patients at 3 years (MD: 11.93, p < 0.00001) and 5 years (MD: 13.11, p = 0.0004). Higher excess BMI loss (percentage) was found in RYGB at 1 year (MD: 11.66, p = 0.01). Total weight loss (percentage) was greater for RYGB patients after 3 months (MD: 2.41, p = 0.02), 6 months (MD: 3.83, p < 0.00001), 1 year (MD: 6.35, p < 0.00001), and 5 years (MD: 3.90, p = 0.005). No difference in terms of remission of type 2 diabetes was seen between RYGB and SG. EWL was significantly more important after OAGB than after RYGB after 1 year (MD: -10.82, p = 0.003).

conclusionsRYGB is more efficient than SG in the midterm. OAGB offers greater EWL than RYGB after 1 year, but further evidence is needed to confirm this result.

Indexed as

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2Gastric BypassObesity, MorbidGastrectomyHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeWeight Loss

Identifiers

PMID35137548
PMCPMC9303972
OpenAlexW4211092641

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.