ReviewFrontiers in endocrinology2023
Quality evaluation of metabolic and bariatric surgical guidelines.
Review in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quality appraisal of clinical guidelines for newborns in China: a systematic review protocol.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Clinical practice guidelines in adult diagnostic flexible bronchoscopy: systematic review of the literature and quality appraisal with AGREE II.Journal of thoracic disease · 2024Review
- Development of the International Federation for Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders-European Chapter (IFSO-EC) Grade-Based Guidelines on the Surgical Treatment of Obesity Using Multimodal Strategies: Design and Methodological Aspects.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the quality of surgical guidelines on bariatric/metabolic surgery. Methods: Four independent reviewers used the AGREE II (The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II) tool to assess the methodological quality of the included guidelines and conducted a comparative analysis of the main recommendations for surgical methods of these guidelines. Results: Nine surgical guidelines were included in this study. Five articles with AGREE II scores over 60% are worthy of clinical recommendation. The field of rigor of development was relatively low, with an average score of 50.82%. Among 15 key recommendations and the corresponding best evidence in the guidelines, only 4 key recommendations were grade A recommendations. Conclusions: The quality of metabolic and bariatric guidelines is uneven, and there is much room for improvement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.