Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 308

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 20 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Surgery for morbid obesity

Colquitt, Jill L, Clegg, Andrew J, Loveman, Emma, Royle, Pamela, Sidhu, Manpreet K·2005·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003641.pub2
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Obesity is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Surgery for morbid obesity is considered when other treatments have failed. A number of procedures are available, but the effects of these surgical procedures compared with medical management and with each other are uncertain. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of surgery for morbid obesity. SEARCH STRATEGY: Studies were obtained from computerized searches of multiple electronic bibliographic databases, supplemented with hand searches of selected journals and consultation with experts in obesity research. Date of the most recent searches: December 2004. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing different surgical procedures, and randomised controlled trials and prospective cohort studies comparing surgery with non-surgical management for morbid obesity. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted by one reviewer and checked independently by two reviewers. Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-six trials were included. Two randomised controlled trials and three prospective cohort studies compared surgery with non-surgical management, and 21 randomised controlled trials compared different surgical procedures. The quality of most of the trials was poor; just three trials had adequate allocation concealment. A meta-analysis was not possible due to differences in the surgical procedures performed, measures of weight change and length of follow-up. Compared with conventional management, surgery resulted in greater weight loss (21 kg weight loss at eight years versus weight gain), with improvements in quality of life and comorbidities. Some complications of surgery occurred, such as wound infection. Gastric bypass was associated with greater weight loss, better quality of life and fewer revisions, reoperations and/or conversions than gastroplasty, but had more side-effects. Greater weight loss and fewer side-effects and reoperations occurred with adjustable gastric banding than vertical banded gastroplasty, but laparoscopic vertical banded gastroplasty produced more patients with an excellent or good result and fewer late complications than laparoscopic adjustable silicone gastric banding. Vertical banded gastroplasty was associated with greater weight loss but more vomiting than horizontal gastroplasty. Some postoperative deaths occurred in the studies. Weight loss was similar between open and laparoscopic procedures. Fewer serious complications occurred with laparoscopic surgery, although conversion to open surgery was sometimes required. Most studies found that laparoscopic surgery had a longer operative time. But, it resulted in reduced blood loss and quicker recovery. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The limited evidence suggests that surgery is more effective than conventional management for weight loss in morbid obesity. The comparative safety and effectiveness of different surgical procedures is unclear.

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 · 10.1002/14651858.cd003641.pub2

Cites

20 of 20 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

Cited by

See all 308

Metadata

Authors
Colquitt, J. L., Clegg, A. J., Loveman, E., Royle, P., & Sidhu, M. K.
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Publisher
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
Published
2005-10-19
Issue
4
Pages
CD003641-CD003641
ISSN
1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1002/14651858.cd003641.pub2
OpenAlex
W1693953467
Cited by
308
References
20
Type
reference entry
Language
en
Open access
closed

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.