SynthesisScientific reports2026
Meta regression of endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty versus intragastric balloon investigating influence of duration and baseline body mass index.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) and intragastric balloon (IGB) are established endoscopic bariatric therapies (EBTs) for obesity, but their comparative efficacy and safety remain uncertain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies evaluating ESG versus IGB. The primary outcome was percentage of total body weight loss (%TBWL), assessed at the longest available follow-up and stratified timepoints (1, 3, 6, and 12 months). To explore temporal trends, we performed a meta-regression using follow-up duration as a continuous moderator. Secondary outcomes included a meta-regression based on baseline BMI differences and a pooled analysis of adverse events. Six comparative studies (n = 5330) were included. ESG was associated with significantly greater %TBWL than IGB (mean difference: 2.541; 95% CI 0.754 to 4.327; p = 0.005), with increasing benefit over time. Meta-regression confirmed a significant positive association between follow-up duration and treatment effect (p = 0.0006). A separate meta-regression revealed greater efficacy of ESG in patients with higher baseline BMI (p = 0.0001). Overall adverse event rates were comparable between the two groups (p = 0.20) ; however, IGB showed observed trends toward higher device intolerance and early removal rates in individual cohorts. Our findings suggest that ESG may offer a therapeutic advantage over IGB regarding weight loss efficacy, a trend that appears more pronounced in cohorts with higher obesity severity and across extended follow-up periods. ESG offers a comparable safety profile to IGB and may represent a more durable endoscopic bariatric option with potential advantages in procedural tolerability. Long-term trials are needed to validate its metabolic and clinical advantages beyond 12 months.
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.