Cited by 100Bariatric Surgery and OutcomesPharmacology and Obesity TreatmentMinimally Invasive Surgical Techniques

The Impact of Intragastric Balloons on Obesity-Related Co-Morbidities: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Popov, Violeta B, Ou, Amy, Schulman, Allison R, Thompson, Christopher C·2017·American Journal of Gastroenterology

Abstract

ObjectivesTherapies less invasive than surgery and more effective than lifestyle and pharmacotherapy are needed to contend with the obesity epidemic. Intragastric balloons (IGBs) are a minimally invasive endoscopic weight loss method recently approved for use in the US. The purpose of the study is to assess the effect of IGBs on metabolic outcomes associated with obesity.MethodsMEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Database were searched through July 2016. Dual extraction and quality assessment of studies using Cochrane risk of bias tool were performed independently by two authors. Primary outcomes included the change from baseline in metabolic parameters. Secondary outcomes included resolution and/or improvement in metabolic co-morbidities and association with baseline parameters.Results10 randomized controlled trials (RCT) and 30 observational studies including 5,668 subjects were analyzed. There was moderate-quality evidence for improvement in most metabolic parameters in subjects assigned to IGB therapy as compared to conventional non-surgical therapy in RCTs: mean difference (MD) in fasting glucose change: -12.7 mg/dl (95% confidence interval (CI) -21.5, -4); MD in triglycerides: -19 mg/dl (95% CI -42, 3.5); MD in waist circumference: -4.1 cm (95% CI -6.9, -1.4); MD in diastolic blood pressure: -2.9 mm Hg (95% CI -4.1, -1.8). The odds ratio for diabetes resolution after IGB therapy was 1.4 (95% CI 1.3, 1.6). The rate of serious adverse events was 1.3%.ConclusionsIGBs are more effective than diet in improving obesity-related metabolic risk factors with a low rate of adverse effects, however the strength of the evidence is limited given the small number of participants and lack of long-term follow-up.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/ajg.2016.530

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 64 · Cited by 100

Authors
Popov, V. B., Ou, A., Schulman, A. R., & Thompson, C. C.
Affiliations
  • VA NY Harbor Healthcare System (US)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Popov, Violeta B
Venue
American Journal of Gastroenterology
Published
2017-03
Volume
112
Issue
3
Pages
429-439
ISSN
0002-9270 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2581940590
Cited by
100
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 2
FWCI
2.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The American Journal of Gastroenterology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Bariatric Surgery and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Pharmacology and Obesity Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Minimally Invasive Surgical Techniques
Keywords
intragastric balloon, obesity, obesity-related comorbidities, endoscopic weight loss, metabolic outcomes, fasting blood glucose, triglycerides, waist circumference, blood pressure, diabetes resolution, adverse events
MeSH terms
Blood Glucose, Blood Pressure, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Humans, Hypertension, Obesity, Postoperative Complications, Triglycerides, Hypertriglyceridemia, Comorbidity, Gastric Balloon, Endoscopy, Digestive System, Treatment Outcome, Waist Circumference

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