SynthesisObesity surgery2026
Primary and Revisional One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass: A Systematic Review and GRADE-Based IFSO Position Statement.
Synthesis in Obesity surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Obesity is a chronic, systemic disease that alters the function of tissues, organs, and overall health, requiring prompt recognition and treatment by qualified professionals. IFSO recognizes the need to provide a new methodology for developing IFSO position statements. All new official position statements should be developed using a GRADE-based methodology, systematically reviewing all available evidence relevant to Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (MBS). The present Position Statement was developed using results coming from a systematic review and meta-analysis, reported herein, following the criteria of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Fourteen Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in this meta-analysis, 13 and 1 of them assessing outcomes of OAGB in primary and revisional setting respectively, with a total of 1288 patients. In the short term, OAGB exhibited a significantly higher excess weight loss percentage (EWL%) compared to RYGB. Regarding weight loss and metabolic outcomes, OAGB was not reported to be inferior in terms of weight loss and T2DM resolution when compared to RYGB. Further RCTs comparing OAGB to other MBS procedures are needed to reach a definitive recommendation regarding OAGB in revisional surgery setting. Regarding safety profile, no statistically significant differences between OAGB and other MBS were reported. This position statement was issued by the IFSO OAGB task force and approved by IFSO Scientific Committee aims to provide evidence on the effectiveness of One Anastomosis Gastric Bypass in both primary and revisional settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41364417What 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.