One-anastomosis gastric bypass <i>vs</i> sleeve gastrectomy for diabetes remission and weight loss: A meta-analysis
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND One-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) and sleeve gastrectomy (SG) are surgical procedures increasingly performed for weight loss and to achieve remission of diabetes mellitus. Literature comparing the medium-term efficacy of these two procedures is scarce. As such, a meta-analysis comparing OAGB and SG in terms of diabetes remission (DR) and percentage of excess weight loss (EWL) is warranted. AIM To compare OAGB and SG in terms of DR and EWL% in the medium term. METHODS A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochran Library, and Web of Science for relevant articles, from inception through April 2025, using the keywords “one-anastomosis gastric bypass”, “sleeve gastrectomy”, “mini-gastric bypass”, “diabetes remission”, “one-anastomosis”, and “excess weight loss”. Clinical trials, prospective, retrospective and case-control studies were included; cross-sectional studies, case reports, editorials, and opinions were excluded. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to assess the quality of included studies, and RevMan version 5.4 was used for data analyses. RESULTS A total of 1360 articles were identified, and 35 studies were retrieved of which 32 were included in the final analysis. Three full texts were excluded as they did not include data on DR or EWL%. OAGB achieved higher DR than SG at 1 year following surgery [odds ratio (OR) = 1.77, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.22-2.57, I 2 = 76%]. However, DR rates were similar at 3 years and 5 years following surgery (OR = 0.82, 95%CI: 0.61-1.10, I 2 = 23% and OR = 0.92, 95%CI: 0.31-2.72, I 2 = 75%, respectively). OAGB showed higher EWL% at 1 year (OR = 9.30, 95%CI: 6.45-12.15, I 2 = 91%), 3 years (OR = 10.02, 95%CI: 9.40-10.64, I 2 = 22%), and 5 years (OR = 11.61, 95%CI: 3.74-19.48, I 2 = 97%). OAGB showed higher late complications than adjustable SG. The results were not different in sub-group analysis including only clinical trials, observational studies, and removing studies including super-obese patients and studies contributing most to heterogeneity. CONCLUSION In the medium term, DR rates were similar between OAGB and SG; however, OAGB showed higher EWL% than SG, and late complications were higher in OAGB. Clinical trials investigating the predictors of DR and EWL% are recommended.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle