Cited by 58Bariatric Surgery and OutcomesDiabetes Management and ResearchMinimally Invasive Surgical Techniques

Diagnostic tools for post‐gastric bypass hypoglycaemia

Emous, M., Ubels, F. L., van Beek, A. P.·2015·Obesity Reviews

Abstract

In spite of its evident success, several late complications can occur after gastric bypass surgery. One of these is post-gastric bypass hypoglycaemia. No evidence-based guidelines exist in the literature on how to confirm the presence of this syndrome. This study aims to describe and compare the tests aimed at making a diagnosis of post-gastric bypass hypoglycaemia and to provide a diagnostic approach based upon the available evidence. A search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane and Embase. A few questionnaires have been developed to measure the severity of symptoms in post-gastric bypass hypoglycaemia but none has been validated. The gold standard for provocation of a hypoglycaemic event is the oral glucose tolerance test or the liquid mixed meal tolerance test. Both show a high prevalence of hypoglycaemia in post-gastric bypass patients with and without hypoglycaemic complaints as well as in healthy volunteers. No uniformly established cut-off values for glucose concentrations are defined in the literature for the diagnosis of post-gastric bypass hypoglycaemia. For establishing an accurate diagnosis of post-gastric bypass hypoglycaemia, a validated questionnaire, in connection with the diagnostic performance of provocation tests, is the most important thing missing. Given these shortcomings, we provide recommendations based upon the current literature.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/obr.12307

Cites

14 of 14 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
Emous, M., Ubels, F. L., & van Beek, A. P.
Affiliations
  • Medisch Centrum Leeuwarden (NL)
  • Department of Bariatric and Metabolic Surgery Medical Center Leeuwarden Leeuwarden The Netherlands
Corresponding author
Emous, M.
Venue
Obesity Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-08-28
Volume
16
Issue
10
Pages
843-856
ISSN
  • 1467-7881 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-789X
OpenAlex
W1879425258
Cited by
58
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 7
FWCI
1.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Obesity Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Bariatric Surgery and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Minimally Invasive Surgical Techniques
Keywords
bariatric surgery complications, diagnostic testing, oral glucose tolerance test, mixed meal tolerance test, bariatric surgery
MeSH terms
Dumping Syndrome, Humans, Hypoglycemia, Obesity, Morbid, Postoperative Complications, Surveys and Questionnaires, Gastric Bypass, Weight Loss, Practice Guidelines as Topic

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