Quality of Follow-up: Systematic Review of the Research in Bariatric Surgery. Issue 5 (May 2016)
- Record Type:
- Journal Article
- Title:
- Quality of Follow-up: Systematic Review of the Research in Bariatric Surgery. Issue 5 (May 2016)
- Main Title:
- Quality of Follow-up
- Authors:
- Switzer, Noah J.
Merani, Shaheed
Skubleny, Daniel
Pelletier, Jean-Sébastien
Kanji, Raisa
Shi, Xinzhe
Birch, Daniel W.
de Gara, Christopher
Sharma, Arya M.
Gill, Richdeep S.
Karmali, Shahzeer - Abstract:
- Abstract : Objective: We aim to systematically review the bariatric surgery literature with regards to adequacy of patient follow-up, meeting the McMaster criteria of ≥80% follow-up. Background: Loss to follow-up is a major concern and can potentially bias the outcome and interpretation of a study. The quality of follow-up in bariatric surgery is quite variable with recent systematic reviews criticizing the field for its lack of overall follow-up. Methods: A complete search of PubMed was performed. Literature was restricted to a range of 5 years (2007–2012), English language, and publications listed in PubMed. The McMaster Evidence-based Criteria for High Quality Studies was used to assess the follow-up data adequacy and a logistic meta-regression was performed to identify factors associated with high quality follow-up studies. Results: Ninety-nine published manuscripts were included. For follow-up at study end, only 40/99 (40.4%) of papers had adequate patient follow-up, 42/99 (42.4%) failed to meet the McMaster criteria and 17/99 (17.2%) failed to report any follow-up results. On average, 31% were lost to follow-up at the study's end. Only shorter study duration, and if the study was performed in the US, were associated with studies meeting the McMaster criteria. Conclusions: Only 40% of studies in the bariatric surgery literature meet criteria for adequate follow-up. On average, studies have 30% of patients lost to follow-up at the stated end-point. Identified studyAbstract : Objective: We aim to systematically review the bariatric surgery literature with regards to adequacy of patient follow-up, meeting the McMaster criteria of ≥80% follow-up. Background: Loss to follow-up is a major concern and can potentially bias the outcome and interpretation of a study. The quality of follow-up in bariatric surgery is quite variable with recent systematic reviews criticizing the field for its lack of overall follow-up. Methods: A complete search of PubMed was performed. Literature was restricted to a range of 5 years (2007–2012), English language, and publications listed in PubMed. The McMaster Evidence-based Criteria for High Quality Studies was used to assess the follow-up data adequacy and a logistic meta-regression was performed to identify factors associated with high quality follow-up studies. Results: Ninety-nine published manuscripts were included. For follow-up at study end, only 40/99 (40.4%) of papers had adequate patient follow-up, 42/99 (42.4%) failed to meet the McMaster criteria and 17/99 (17.2%) failed to report any follow-up results. On average, 31% were lost to follow-up at the study's end. Only shorter study duration, and if the study was performed in the US, were associated with studies meeting the McMaster criteria. Conclusions: Only 40% of studies in the bariatric surgery literature meet criteria for adequate follow-up. On average, studies have 30% of patients lost to follow-up at the stated end-point. Identified study characteristics associated with high quality follow-up included shorter study duration and studies performed in the US. … (more)
- Is Part Of:
- Annals of surgery. Volume 263:Issue 5(2016:May)
- Journal:
- Annals of surgery
- Issue:
- Volume 263:Issue 5(2016:May)
- Issue Display:
- Volume 263, Issue 5 (2016)
- Year:
- 2016
- Volume:
- 263
- Issue:
- 5
- Issue Sort Value:
- 2016-0263-0005-0000
- Page Start:
- 875
- Page End:
- 880
- Publication Date:
- 2016-05
- Subjects:
- bariatric surgery -- follow-up -- loss to follow-up
Surgery -- Periodicals
617.005 - Journal URLs:
- http://www.annalsofsurgery.com ↗
http://journals.lww.com ↗ - DOI:
- 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001478 ↗
- Languages:
- English
- ISSNs:
- 0003-4932
- Deposit Type:
- Legaldeposit
- View Content:
- Available online (eLD content is only available in our Reading Rooms) ↗
- Physical Locations:
- British Library DSC - 1044.500000
British Library DSC - BLDSS-3PM
British Library STI - ELD Digital store - Ingest File:
- 2478.xml