One-anastomosis gastric bypass <i>vs</i> sleeve gastrectomy for diabetes remission and weight loss: A meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.058 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".