Dataset Information

The comprehensive summary of surgical versus non-surgical treatment for obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

ABSTRACT: Bariatric surgery has emerged as a competitive strategy for obese patients. However, its comparative efficacy against non-surgical treatments remains ill-defined, especially among nonseverely obese crowds. Therefore, we implemented a systematic review and meta-analysis in order for an academic addition to current literatures.Literatures were retrieved from databases of PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE and Cochrane Library. Randomized trials comparing surgical with non-surgical therapies for obesity were included. A Revised Jadad's Scale and Risk of Bias Summary were employed for methodological assessment. Subgroups analysis, sensitivity analysis and publication bias assessment were respectively performed in order to find out the source of heterogeneity, detect the outcome stability and potential publication bias.25 randomized trials were eligibly included, totally comprising of 1194 participants. Both groups displayed well comparability concerning baseline parameters (P > 0.05). The pooled results of primary endpoints (weight loss and diabetic remission) revealed a significant advantage among surgical patients rather than those receiving non-surgical treatments (P < 0.05). Furthermore, except for certain cardiovascular indicators, bariatric surgery was superior to conventional arms in terms of metabolic secondary parameters (P < 0.05). Additionally, the pooled outcomes were confirmed to be stable by sensitivity analysis. Although Egger's test (P < 0.01) and Begg's test (P<0.05) had reported the presence of publication bias among included studies, "Trim-and-Fill" method verified that the pooled outcomes remained stable.Bariatric surgery is a better therapeutic option for weight loss, irrespective of follow-up duration, surgical techniques and obesity levels.

SUBMITTER: Cheng J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5129927 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The comprehensive summary of surgical versus non-surgical treatment for obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Cheng Ji J Gao Jinbo J Shuai Xiaoming X Wang Guobin G Tao Kaixiong K

Oncotarget 20160601 26

<h4>Background</h4>Bariatric surgery has emerged as a competitive strategy for obese patients. However, its comparative efficacy against non-surgical treatments remains ill-defined, especially among nonseverely obese crowds. Therefore, we implemented a systematic review and meta-analysis in order for an academic addition to current literatures.<h4>Methods</h4>Literatures were retrieved from databases of PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE and Cochrane Library. Randomized trials comparing surgical wit ...[more]

PMID: 27233078

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo quantify the overall effects of bariatric surgery compared with non-surgical treatment for obesity.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis based on a random effects model.Data sourcesSearches of Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from their inception to December 2012 regardless of language or publication status.Eligibility criteriaEligible studies were randomised controlled trials with ≥ 6 months of follow-up that included individuals with a body mass index ≥ 30, compared current bariatric surgery techniques with non-surgical treatment, and reported on body weight, cardiovascular risk factors, quality of life, or adverse events.ResultsThe meta-analysis included 11 studies with 796 individuals (range of mean body mass index at baseline 30-52). Individuals allocated to bariatric surgery lost more body weight (mean difference -26 kg (95% confidence interval -31 to -21)) compared with non-surgical treatment, had a higher remission rate of type 2 diabetes (relative risk 22.1 (3.2 to 154.3) in a complete case analysis; 5.3 (1.8 to 15.8) in a conservative analysis assuming diabetes remission in all non-surgically treated individuals with missing data) and metabolic syndrome (relative risk 2.4 (1.6 to 3.6) in complete case analysis; 1.5 (0.9 to 2.3) in conservative analysis), greater improvements in quality of life and reductions in medicine use (no pooled data). Plasma triglyceride concentrations decreased more (mean difference -0.7 mmol/L (-1.0 to -0.4) and high density lipoprotein cholesterol concentrations increased more (mean difference 0.21 mmol/L (0.1 to 0.3)). Changes in blood pressure and total or low density lipoprotein cholesterol concentrations were not significantly different. There were no cardiovascular events or deaths reported after bariatric surgery. The most common adverse events after bariatric surgery were iron deficiency anaemia (15% of individuals undergoing malabsorptive bariatric surgery) and reoperations (8%).ConclusionsCompared with non-surgical treatment of obesity, bariatric surgery leads to greater body weight loss and higher remission rates of type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome. However, results are limited to two years of follow-up and based on a small number of studies and individuals.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42012003317 (www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO).

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare outcomes of endoscopic and surgical treatment for infected necrotizing pancreatitis (INP) based on results of randomized controlled trials (RCT).BackgroundTreatment of INP has changed in the last two decades with adoption of interventional, endoscopic and minimally invasive surgical procedures for drainage and necrosectomy. However, this relies mostly on observational studies.MethodsWe performed a systematic review following Cochrane and PRISMA guidelines and AMSTAR-2 criteria and searched CENTRAL, Medline and Web of Science. Randomized controlled trails that compared an endoscopic treatment to a surgical treatment for patients with infected walled-off necrosis and included one of the main outcomes were eligible for inclusion. The main outcomes were mortality and new onset multiple organ failure. Prospero registration ID: CRD42019126033 RESULTS: Three RCTs with 190 patients were included. Intention to treat analysis showed no difference in mortality. However, patients in the endoscopic group had statistically significant lower odds of experiencing new onset multiple organ failure (odds ratio (OR) confidence interval [CI] 0.31 [0.10, 0.98]) and were statistically less likely to suffer from perforations of visceral organs or enterocutaneous fistulae (OR [CI] 0.31 [0.10, 0.93]), and pancreatic fistulae (OR [CI] 0.09 [0.03, 0.28]). Patients with endoscopic treatment had a statistically significant lower mean hospital stay (Mean difference [CI] - 7.86 days [- 14.49, - 1.22]). No differences in bleeding requiring intervention, incisional hernia, exocrine or endocrine insufficiency or ICU stay were apparent. Overall certainty of evidence was moderate.ConclusionThere seem to be possible benefits of endoscopic treatment procedure. Given the heterogenous procedures in the surgical group as well as the low amount of randomized evidence, further studies are needed to evaluate the combination of different approaches and appropriate timepoints for interventions.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Carpal tunnel syndrome is a common compressive neuropathy of the median nerve. The efficacy and safety of endoscopic versus open carpal tunnel release remain controversial. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES:The purpose of this study was to determine whether endoscopic compared with open carpal tunnel release provides better symptom relief, validated outcome scores, short- and long-term strength, and/or digital sensibility; entails a differential risk of complications such as nerve injury, scar tenderness, pillar pain, and reoperation; allows an earlier return to work; and takes less operative time. METHODS:The English-language literature was searched using MEDLINE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Randomized controlled trials that compared endoscopic and open carpal tunnel release were included in the meta-analysis. Methodologic quality was assessed with the Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist, and a sensitivity analysis was performed. Symptom relief, Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ) scores, strength, digital sensibility, complications, reoperation, interval to return to work, and operative time were analyzed. Twenty-one randomized controlled trials containing 1859 hands were included. RESULTS:Endoscopically treated patients showed similar symptom relief and BCTQ scores; better early recovery of grip strength (mean difference [MD], 3.03 kg [0.08-5.98]; p = 0.04) and pinch strength (MD, 0.77 kg [0.33-1.22]; p < 0.001) but no advantage after 6 months; lower risk of scar tenderness (risk ratio [RR], 0.53 [0.35-0.82]; p = 0.005); higher risk of nerve injury (RR, 2.84 [1.08-7.46]; p = 0.03), most of which were transient neurapraxias. Similar risk of pillar pain and reoperation; an earlier return to work (MD, -8.73 days [-12.82 to -4.65]; p < 0.001); and reduced operative time (MD, -4.81 minutes [-9.23 to -0.39]; p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS:High-level evidence from randomized controlled trials indicates that endoscopic release allows earlier return to work and improved strength during the early postoperative period. Results at 6 months or later are similar according to current data except that patients undergoing endoscopic release are at greater risk of nerve injury and lower risk of scar tenderness compared with open release. While endoscopic release may appeal to patients who require an early return to work and activities, surgeons should be cognizant of its elevated incidence of transient nerve injury amid its similar overall efficacy to open carpal tunnel release. Additional research is required to define the learning curve of endoscopic release and clarify the influence of surgeon volume on its safety.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough laparoscopic surgery has been available for a long time and laparoscopic cholecystectomy has been performed universally, it is still not clear whether open appendectomy (OA) or laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) is the most appropriate surgical approach to acute appendicitis. The purpose of this work is to compare the therapeutic effects and safety of laparoscopic and conventional "open" appendectomy by means of a meta-analysis.MethodsA meta-analysis was performed of all randomized controlled trials published in English that compared LA and OA in adults and children between 1990 and 2009. Calculations were made of the effect sizes of: operating time, postoperative length of hospital stay, postoperative pain, return to normal activity, resumption of diet, complications rates, and conversion to open surgery. The effect sizes were then pooled by a fixed or random-effects model.ResultsForty-four randomized controlled trials with 5292 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Operating time was 12.35 min longer for LA (95% CI: 7.99 to 16.72, p < 0.00001). Hospital stay after LA was 0.60 days shorter (95% CI: -0.85 to -0.36, p < 0.00001). Patients returned to their normal activity 4.52 days earlier after LA (95% CI: -5.95 to -3.10, p < 0.00001), and resumed their diet 0.34 days earlier(95% CI: -0.46 to -0.21, p < 0.00001). Pain after LA on the first postoperative day was significantly less (p = 0.008). The overall conversion rate from LA to OA was 9.51%. With regard to the rate of complications, wound infection after LA was definitely reduced (OR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.34 to 0.59, p < 0.00001), while postoperative ileus was not significantly reduced(OR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.57 to 1.47, p = 0.71). However, intra-abdominal abscess (IAA), intraoperative bleeding and urinary tract infection (UIT) after LA, occurred slightly more frequently(OR = 1.56, 95% CI: 1.01 to 2.43, p = 0.05; OR = 1.56, 95% CI: 0.54 to 4.48, p = 0.41; OR = 1.76, 95% CI: 0.58 to 5.29, p = 0.32).ConclusionLA provides considerable benefits over OA, including a shorter length of hospital stay, less postoperative pain, earlier postoperative recovery, and a lower complication rate. Furthermore, over the study period it was obvious that there had been a trend toward fewer differences in operating time for the two procedures. Although LA was associated with a slight increase in the incidence of IAA, intraoperative bleeding and UIT, it is a safe procedure. It may be that the widespread use of LA is due to its better therapeutic effect.

Dataset Information

The comprehensive summary of surgical versus non-surgical treatment for obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Publications

The comprehensive summary of surgical versus non-surgical treatment for obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure