Cited by 111Bariatric Surgery and OutcomesGastrointestinal Bleeding Diagnosis and TreatmentMinimally Invasive Surgical Techniques

The role of routine preoperative upper endoscopy in bariatric surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Bennett, Sean, Gostimir, Mišo, Shorr, Risa, Mallick, Ranjeeta, Mamazza, Joseph, Neville, Amy·2016·Surgery for Obesity and Related Diseases

Abstract

Background The necessity of routine preoperative esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) before bariatric surgery is controversial. European guidelines recommend routine EGD while North American guidelines recommend a selective approach.Objective Perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the proportion and scope of clinical findings discovered at preoperative EGD.Setting Academic hospital, Canada.Methods A search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases included MeSH terms "bariatric surgery," "endoscopy," and "preoperative." Inclusion criteria were any case series, cohort study, or clinical trial describing results of preoperative EGD for any bariatric surgery. Exclusion criteria were studies with<10 patients, patients<18 years of age, or revisional operations. Changes in surgical and medical management and proportions of pathologic findings were extracted and combined in a meta-analysis using the random effects model.Results Initial search identified 532 citations. Forty-eight were included after full text review. Included studies comprised 12,261 patients with a mean (SD) age of 40.5 (1.3) years and body mass index of 46.3 (1.5) kg/m(2). The majority of patients (77.1%) were female. The proportion of EGDs resulting in a change in surgical management was 7.8%. After removing benign findings with controversial impact on management (hiatal hernia, gastritis, peptic ulcer), this was found to be .4%. Changes in medical management were seen in 27.5%, but after eliminating Helicobacter pylori eradication, this was found to be 2.5%.Conclusion Preoperative EGD in average-risk, asymptomatic bariatric surgery patients should be considered optional, as the proportion of EGDs that resulted in important changes in management was low.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.soard.2016.04.012

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bennett, S., Gostimir, M., Shorr, R., Mallick, R., Mamazza, J., & Neville, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Ottawa (CA)
  • Ottawa Hospital (CA)
Corresponding author
Neville, Amy
Venue
Surgery for Obesity and Related Diseases
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-06
Volume
12
Issue
5
Pages
1116-1125
ISSN
1550-7289 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2341302523
Cited by
111
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 2
FWCI
2.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Surgery for Obesity and Related Diseases (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Bariatric Surgery and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Gastroenterology › Gastrointestinal Bleeding Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Minimally Invasive Surgical Techniques
Keywords
bariatric surgery
MeSH terms
Adult, Barrett Esophagus, Esophageal Neoplasms, Female, Gastritis, Gastroesophageal Reflux, Gastroscopy, Humans, Male, Preoperative Care, Helicobacter pylori, Helicobacter Infections, Histamine Agonists, Incidental Findings, Bariatric Surgery, Proton Pump Inhibitors

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