Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 420

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 53 of the 53 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Grazing and Loss of Control Related to Eating: Two High‐risk Factors Following Bariatric Surgery

Open access
Colles, Susan L., Dixon, John B., O'Brien, Paul E.·2008·Obesity
DOI 10.1038/oby.2007.101
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background: Gastric restrictive surgery induces a marked change in eating behavior. However, the relationship between preoperative and postoperative eating behavior and weight loss outcome has received limited attention. Objective: This study assessed a range of eating behaviors before and 1 year after laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) and explored the nature and extent of change in eating patterns, their clinical associates, and impact on weight loss. Methods and Procedures: A 12‐month observational study assessed presurgical and postsurgical binge eating disorder (BED), uncontrolled eating, night eating syndrome (NES), grazing, nutrient intake and eating‐related behaviors, and markers of psychological distress. A total of 129 subjects (26 male and 103 female, mean age 45.2 ± 11.5 and BMI 44.3 ± 6.8) participated in this study. Results: Presurgical BED, uncontrolled eating, and NES occurred in 14%, 31%, and 17.1% of subjects, which reduced after surgery to 3.1%, 22.5%, and 7.8%, respectively (P = 0.05 for all). Grazing was prevalent before (26.3%) and after surgery (38.0%). Preoperative BED most frequently became grazers (P = 0.029). The average percentage weight loss (%WL) was 20.8 ± 8.5%; range −0.67 to 50.0% and percentage of excess weight loss (%EWL) 50.0 ± 20.7%; range −1.44 to 106.9% (P < 0.001). Uncontrolled eating and grazing after surgery showed high overlap and were associated with poorer %WL (P = 0.008 and P < 0.001, respectively) and elevated psychological distress. Discussion: Consistent with recent studies, uncontrolled eating and grazing were identified as two high‐risk eating patterns after surgery. Clearer characterization of favorable and unfavorable postsurgical eating behaviors, reliable methods to assess their presence, and empirically tested postsurgical intervention strategies are required to optimize weight loss outcomes and facilitate psychological well‐being in at‐risk groups.

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 · 10.1038/oby.2007.101

Cites

53 of 53 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 420

Metadata

Authors
Colles, S. L., Dixon, J. B., & O'Brien, P. E.
Venue
Obesity
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-03
Volume
16
Issue
3
Pages
615-622
ISSN
  • 1930-7381 (ISSN-L)
  • 1930-739X
DOI
10.1038/oby.2007.101
OpenAlex
W2088103527
Cited by
420
References
53
FWCI
17.13
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.