Cited by 93Bariatric Surgery and OutcomesMinimally Invasive Surgical TechniquesBody Contouring and Surgery

Efficacy of Laparoscopic Mini Gastric Bypass for Obesity and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Open access
Quan, Yingjun, Huang, Ao, Ye, Min, Xu, Ming, Zhuang, Biao, Zhang, Peng, Yu, Bo, Min, Zhijun·2015·Gastroenterology Research and Practice

Abstract

Background. Controversies on the utility of laparoscopic mini gastric bypass (LMGB) in weight loss and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) control still exist.Methods. We conducted a comprehensive literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. Review Manager was used to perform the meta-analysis and the weighted mean difference (WMD) and/or odds ratio with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were used to evaluate the overall size effect.Results. The literature search identified 16 studies for systematic review and 15 articles for meta-analysis. Compared with LAGB, LSG, and LRYGB, LMGB showed significant weight loss [WMD, −6.58 (95% CI, −9.37, −3.79),P<0.01(LAGB); 2.86 (95% CI, 1.40, 5.83),P=0.004(LSG); 10.33 (95% CI, 4.30, 16.36),P<0.01(LRYGB)] and comparable/higher T2DM remission results [86.2% versus 55.6%,P=0.06(LAGB); 89.1% versus 76.3%,P=0.004(LAGB); 93.4% versus 77.6%,P=0.006(LAGB)]; LMGB also had shorter learning curve and less operation time than LRYGB [WMD, −35.2 (95% CI, −46.94, −23.46)].Conclusions. LMGB appeared to be effective in weight loss and T2DM remission and noninferior to other bariatric surgeries. However, clinical utility of LMGB needs to be further validated by future prospective randomized controlled trials.

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 · 10.1155/2015/152852

Cites

71 of 71 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Quan, Y., Huang, A., Ye, M., Xu, M., Zhuang, B., Zhang, P., Yu, B., & Min, Z.
Affiliations
Fudan University (CN)
Corresponding author
  • Quan, Yingjun
  • Min, Zhijun
Venue
Gastroenterology Research and Practice
Published
2015
Volume
2015
Pages
1-13
ISSN
  • 1687-6121 (ISSN-L)
  • 1687-630X
OpenAlex
W2154340533
Cited by
93
References
71
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 4
FWCI
2.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Gastroenterology Research and Practice (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Bariatric Surgery and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Minimally Invasive Surgical Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Body Contouring and Surgery
Keywords
laparoscopic mini-gastric bypass, bariatric surgery, obesity, type 2 diabetes, weight loss, diabetes remission, laparoscopic adjustable gastric band, laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, learning curve, operative time

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