Outcomes of Mini vs Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: A meta-analysis and systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mini gastric bypass has been proved to be capable of achieving excellent metabolic results by numerous published studies. Compared to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, mini gastric bypass is a technically simpler and reversible procedure. However, comparative outcomes of the effectiveness between Mini gastric bypass and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass remain unclear. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane library from inception to February 9, 2018. For assessment of method quality, NOS (Newcastle-Ottawa Scale) and Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias were used for cohort study and randomized controlled trials, respectively. The meta-analysis was performed by RevMan 5.3 software. RESULTS: 10 cohort studies and 1 randomized controlled trial was included in our meta-analysis. The method quality of the 10 cohort studies was proved as high quality according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The randomized controlled trial was proved to have a low risk of bias according to Cochrane Collaboration's assessment. Patients receiving mini-gastric bypass had multiple advantageous indexes as compared with patients receiving Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Examples include: a higher 1-year EWL% (P < 0.05), higher 2-year EWL% (P < 0.05), higher type 2 diabetes mellitus remission rate, as well as a shorter operation time (P < 0.05). No significant statistical difference was observed in hypertension remission rate, mortality, leakage rate, GERD rate, or hospital stay between mini gastric bypass and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. CONCLUSION: Mini gastric bypass seems to be a simpler procedure with a better weight reduction effect. This seems to also be the case regarding remission rates of type 2 diabetes mellitus when using Mini gastric bypass in comparison to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. A small sample size and biased data may have influenced the stability of our results. In light of this, surgeons should treat our results in a conservative way. Larger sample size and multi-center randomized control trials are needed to compare the effectiveness and safety between mini-gastric bypass and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".