Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 414

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparison of the Performance of Common Measures of Weight Regain After Bariatric Surgery for Association With Clinical Outcomes

Open access
King, Wendy C., Hinerman, Amanda S., Belle, Steven H., Wahed, Abdus S., Courcoulas, Anita P.·2018·JAMA
DOI 10.1001/jama.2018.14433
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Importance: Estimates of weight regain following bariatric surgery vary widely. Objective: To describe weight regain after reaching nadir weight following Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) surgery and compare weight regain measures for association with outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: Prospective cohort study of 2458 adults who underwent bariatric surgery at 10 hospitals in 6 US cities between March 2006 and April 2009. Assessments were conducted within 30 days' presurgery, at 6 months' postsurgery, and then annually until January 2015. Of the 1703 participants who underwent RYGB surgery, 1406 (83%) were followed up for 5 years or longer and had 5 or more weight measurements (excluding those who died or underwent surgical reversal). Exposures: Weight regain assessed by 5 continuous measures (weight in kilograms, body mass index [BMI], percentage of presurgery weight, percentage of nadir weight, and percentage of maximum weight lost) and 8 dichotomous measures (per established thresholds) were compared in relation to clinical outcomes based on statistical significance, magnitude of association, and model fit. Main Outcomes and Measures: Progression of diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and hypertension and declines in physical and mental health-related quality of life and satisfaction with surgery. Results: Among the 1406 participants who underwent RYGB surgery, the median age was 47 years (25th-75th percentile, 38-55 years) and the median BMI was 46.3 (25th-75th percentile, 42.3-51.8) prior to surgery. Most participants were female (80.3%) and white (85.6%). The median follow-up was 6.6 years (25th-75th percentile, 5.9-7.0 years). The median percentage of maximum weight loss was 37.4% (25th-75th percentile, 31.6%-43.3%) of presurgery weight and occurred a median of 2.0 years after RYGB surgery (25th-75th percentile, 1.0-3.2 years). The rate of weight regain was highest during the first year after reaching nadir weight, but weight regain continued to increase throughout follow-up (range, a median of 9.5% of maximum weight lost [25th-75th percentile, 4.7%-17.2%] to 26.8% of maximum weight lost [25th-75th percentile, 16.7%-41.5%] 1 to 5 years after reaching nadir weight). The percentage of participants who regained weight depended on threshold (eg, 5 years after nadir weight, 43.6% regained ≥5 BMI points; 50.2% regained ≥15% of nadir weight; and 67.3% regained ≥20% of maximum weight lost). Compared with other continuous weight regain measures, the percentage of maximum weight lost had the strongest association and best model fit for all outcomes except hyperlipidemia, which had a slightly stronger association with BMI. Of the dichotomous measures, 20% or greater of maximum weight lost performed better or similarly with most of the outcomes, and was the second best measure for hyperlipidemia (after ≥10 kg of weight) and hypertension (after ≥10% of maximum weight lost). Conclusions and Relevance: Among a large cohort of adults who underwent RYGB surgery, weight regain quantified as percentage of maximum weight lost performed better for association with most clinical outcomes than the alternatives examined. These findings may inform standardizing the measurement of weight regain in studies of bariatric surgery.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.2018.14433

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 9 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
King, W. C., Hinerman, A. S., Belle, S. H., Wahed, A. S., & Courcoulas, A. P.
Venue
JAMA
Publisher
American Medical Association (AMA)
Published
2018-10-16
Volume
320
Issue
15
Pages
1560
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
DOI
10.1001/jama.2018.14433
OpenAlex
W2896790246
Cited by
414
References
9
FWCI
23.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.