ArticleInternational journal of obesity (2005)2024
Prioritising patients for publicly funded bariatric surgery in Queensland, Australia.
Article in International journal of obesity (2005), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Economic Evaluation of the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Initiative for Patients With Obesity and Comorbid Diabetes in Queensland.Obesity science & practice · 2026Article
- Complications After Bariatric Surgery: Insights from a 14-Year Single-Institutional Study Without Fistula.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
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
objectivesThis study reports the development and pilot application of the Bariatric Surgery Assessment and Prioritisation Tool (BAPT) for use in a public health system. The BAPT was designed as a patient prioritisation instrument to assess patients with excessive weight and type 2 diabetes suitable for bariatric surgery. We assessed whether the instrument successfully identified those who gained the greatest benefits including weight loss, diabetes remission, reduction in comorbidities, and health-related quality of life (HR-QoL).
methodsThe BAPT instrument was applied to score 292 patients referred for bariatric surgery in Queensland between 2017 and 2020 based on their, body mass index, diabetes status, surgical risk (e.g. pulmonary embolism) and comorbidities (e.g. non-alcoholic steatohepatitis). These data were collected at referral and at 12-months post-surgery for 130 patients and stratified by BAPT scores. Outcomes included clinical and HR-QoL.
resultsPatients' BAPT scores ranged from 12 to 78 (possible range 2-98). Those with higher scores tended to be younger (p < 0.001), have higher BMI (p < 0.001) or require insulin to manage diabetes (p < 0.01). All patients lost similar percentages of body weight (20-25%, p = 0.73) but higher-scoring patients were more likely to discontinue oral diabetes medications (p < 0.001) and the improvement in glycated haemoglobin was four times greater in patients scoring 70-79 points compared to those scoring 20-29 (p < 0.05). Those who scored ≥ 50 on the BAPT were substantially more likely to obtain diabetes remission (57% vs 31%). BAPT scores of 40 and above tended to have greater improvement in HR-QoL.
conclusionsThe BAPT prioritised younger patients with higher BMIs who realised greater improvements in their diabetes after bariatric surgery. Higher-scoring BAPT patients should be prioritised for bariatric surgery as they have a greater likelihood of attaining diabetes remission.
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.