The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Bariatric surgery: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials: Network meta-analysis of bariatric surgery
Open accessAbstract
The clinical efficacy and safety of bariatric surgery trials were systematically reviewed. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL were searched to February 2009. A basic PubCrawler alert was run until March 2010. Trial registries, HTA websites and systematic reviews were searched. Manufacturers were contacted. Randomized trials comparing bariatric surgeries and/or standard care were selected. Evidence-based items potentially indicating risk of bias were assessed. Network meta-analysis was performed using Bayesian techniques. Of 1838 citations, 31 RCTs involving 2619 patients (mean age 30-48 y; mean BMI levels 42-58 kg/m(2) ) met eligibility criteria. As compared with standard care, differences in BMI levels from baseline at year 1 (15 trials; 1103 participants) were as follows: jejunoileal bypass [MD: -11.4 kg/m(2) ], mini-gastric bypass [-11.3 kg/m(2) ], biliopancreatic diversion [-11.2 kg/m(2) ], sleeve gastrectomy [-10.1 kg/m(2) ], Roux-en-Y gastric bypass [-9.0 kg/m(2) ], horizontal gastroplasty [-5.0 kg/m(2) ], vertical banded gastroplasty [-6.4 kg/m(2) ], and adjustable gastric banding [-2.4 kg/m(2) ]. Bariatric surgery appears efficacious compared to standard care in reducing BMI. Weight losses are greatest with diversionary procedures, intermediate with diversionary/restrictive procedures, and lowest with those that are purely restrictive. Compared with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, adjustable gastric banding has lower weight loss efficacy, but also leads to fewer serious adverse effects.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gotzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2700 · Cited by 17,648
Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?
Jadad, A. R., Moore, R. A., Carroll, D., Jenkinson, C., Reynolds, D. J. M., Gavaghan, D. J., & McQuay, H. J. (1996) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(95)00134-4 · Cited by 17,582
Schulz (1995) · doi:10.1001/jama.1995.03520290060030 · Cited by 5,634
Effects of Bariatric Surgery on Mortality in Swedish Obese Subjects
Sjöström, L., Narbro, K., Sjöström, C. D., Karason, K., Larsson, B., Wedel, H., Lystig, T., Sullivan, M., Bouchard, C., Carlsson, B., et al. (2007) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa066254 · Cited by 4,668
Lifestyle, diabetes, and cardiovascular risk factors 10 years after bariatric surgery
Sjöström, L., Lindroos, A.-K., Peltonen, M., Torgerson, J., Bouchard, C., Carlsson, B., Dahlgren, S., Larsson, B., Narbro, K., Sjöström, C. D., et al. (2004) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa035622 · Cited by 4,457
Obesity and Diabetes in the Developing World — A Growing Challenge
Hossain, P., Kawar, B., & El Nahas, M. (2007) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmp068177 · Cited by 2,200
Evaluation of networks of randomized trials
Salanti, G., Higgins, J. P., Ades, A., & Ioannidis, J. P. (2008) · Statistical Methods in Medical Research · doi:10.1177/0962280207080643 · Cited by 1,078
Metabolic/bariatric surgery worldwide 2008
Buchwald, H., & Oien, D. M. (2009) · Obesity Surgery · doi:10.1007/s11695-009-0014-5 · Cited by 826
Sjöström, L., Gummesson, A., Sjöström, C. D., Narbro, K., Peltonen, M., Wedel, H., Bengtsson, C., Bouchard, C., Carlsson, B., Dahlgren, S., et al. (2009) · The Lancet Oncology · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(09)70159-7 · Cited by 770
Publication and related biases.
Song, Eastwood, Gilbody, Duley, & Sutton (2000) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta4100 · Cited by 427
Cited by
Salanti, G. (2012) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1037 · Cited by 1,729
Gut feelings: the emerging biology of gut-brain communication
Mayer, E. A. (2011) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn3071 · Cited by 1,726
Chang, S.-H., Stoll, C. R. T., Song, J., Varela, J. E., Eagon, C. J., & Colditz, G. A. (2014) · JAMA Surgery · doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2013.3654 · Cited by 1,688
Mechanick, J. I., Youdim, A., Jones, D. B., Garvey, W. T., Hurley, D. L., McMahon, M. M., Heinberg, L. J., Kushner, R., Adams, T. D., Shikora, S., et al. (2013) · Obesity · doi:10.1002/oby.20461 · Cited by 1,650
Gloy, V. L., Briel, M., Bhatt, D. L., Kashyap, S. R., Schauer, P. R., Mingrone, G., Bucher, H. C., & Nordmann, A. J. (2013) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.f5934 · Cited by 1,351
Metadata
- Authors
- Padwal, R., Klarenbach, S., Wiebe, N., Birch, D., Karmali, S., Manns, B., Hazel, M., Sharma, A. M., & Tonelli, M.
- Venue
- Obesity Reviews
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2011-03-28
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 602-621
- ISSN
- 1467-7881 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1490555655
- Cited by
- 260
- References
- 12
- FWCI
- 5.77
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Bariatric surgery: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials: Network meta-analysis of bariatric surgery. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1467-789x.2011.00866.x
- The paper
- Padwal, R., Klarenbach, S., Wiebe, N., Birch, D., Karmali, S., Manns, B., Hazel, M., Sharma, A. M., & Tonelli, M. (2011). Bariatric surgery: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials: Network meta-analysis of bariatric surgery. Obesity Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-789x.2011.00866.x
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.
