1,720,955 research outputs found
Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, adjustable gastric banding, or sleeve gastrectomy for severe obesity (By-Band-Sleeve): a multicentre, open label, three-group, randomised controlled trial
Get PDFBackground
The health risks of severe obesity can be reduced with metabolic and bariatric surgery, but it is uncertain which operation is most effective or cost-effective. We aimed to compare Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, adjustable gastric banding, and sleeve gastrectomy in patients with severe obesity.
Methods
By-Band-Sleeve is a pragmatic, multi-centre, open-label, randomised controlled trial conducted in 12 hospitals in the UK. Eligible participants were adults (aged ≥18 years) meeting national criteria for metabolic and bariatric surgery. Initially, a 2-group trial (Roux-en-Y gastric bypass versus adjustable gastric banding) became a 3-group trial to include sleeve gastrectomy at 2·6 years from study opening, when it became widely used in the UK. Co-primary endpoints were weight (proportion achieving ≥50% excess weight loss) and quality-of-life (EQ-5D utility score) at 3 years. If the proportion achieving at least 50% excess weight loss was non-inferior (<12% difference between groups) and quality-of-life was superior, sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass were considered more effective than adjustable gastric banding, and sleeve gastrectomy more effective than Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Cost-effectiveness of the procedures was compared. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02841527, and ISRCTN, 00786323.
Results
Between Jan 16, 2013, and Sept 27, 2019, 1351 participants were randomly assigned; five withdrew consent and 1346 (mean age 47·3 [SD 10·6] years, 1020 [76%] women, 324 (24%) men, and two with missing data, mean weight of 129·7 kg [23·6] and mean BMI of 46·4 [6·9] kg/m2) were included in this report. Of 1346 participants, 462 (34%) were in the Roux-en-Y gastric bypass group, 464 (34%) in the adjustable gastric banding group, and 420 (31%) in the sleeve gastrectomy group. 1183 (88%) participants underwent surgery. 276 (68%) of 405 participants in the Roux-en-Y gastric bypass group, 97 (25%) of 383 participants in the adjustable gastric banding group and 141 (41%) of 342 participants in the sleeve gastrectomy group achieved at least 50% excess weight loss (adjusted risk difference: Roux-en-Y gastric bypass vs adjustable gastric banding 41% [98% CI 34 to 48]; sleeve gastrectomy vs adjustable gastric banding 15% [5 to 24]; sleeve gastrectomy vs Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, –26% [–36 to –16%]). Mean EQ-5D scores were 0·72 for Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, 0·62 for adjustable gastric banding, and 0·68 for sleeve gastrectomy (adjusted mean difference: Roux-en-Y gastric bypass vs adjustable gastric banding 0·08 [0·04 to 0·12], sleeve gastrectomy vs adjustable gastric banding 0·05 [0·01 to 0·09], and sleeve gastrectomy vs Roux-en-Y gastric bypass –0·03 [–0·07 to 0·01]). 1651 adverse events were reported following surgery (5·7 per year after sleeve gastrectomy, 6·0 per year after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, and 4·6 per year after adjustable gastric banding). There were 11 deaths from randomisation to 3 years: one attributable to surgery (in the adjustable gastric bypass group, during the surgical admission) and ten not attributable to surgery (four each in the Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and adjustable gastric banding groups and two in the sleeve gastrectomy group). Roux-en-Y gastric bypass was most cost-effective.
Interpretation
Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy are more effective than adjustable gastric banding. Sleeve gastrectomy has inferior weight loss and lower mean quality of life score compared with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Based on this evidence, it is recommended that patients electing to have metabolic and bariatric surgery are advised to have Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Where contraindicated or unfeasible, sleeve gastrectomy should be offered. This evidence does not support adjustable gastric band as standard treatment for severe obesity.
Funding
National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Programme
Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, adjustable gastric banding, or sleeve gastrectomy for severe obesity (By-Band-Sleeve): a multicentre, open label, three-group, randomised controlled trial.
Get PDF© 2025 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 licenseBackground
The health risks of severe obesity can be reduced with metabolic and bariatric surgery, but it is uncertain which operation is most effective or cost-effective. We aimed to compare Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, adjustable gastric banding, and sleeve gastrectomy in patients with severe obesity.
Methods
By-Band-Sleeve is a pragmatic, multi-centre, open-label, randomised controlled trial conducted in 12 hospitals in the UK. Eligible participants were adults (aged ≥18 years) meeting national criteria for metabolic and bariatric surgery. Initially, a 2-group trial (Roux-en-Y gastric bypass versus adjustable gastric banding) became a 3-group trial to include sleeve gastrectomy at 2·6 years from study opening, when it became widely used in the UK. Co-primary endpoints were weight (proportion achieving ≥50% excess weight loss) and quality-of-life (EQ-5D utility score) at 3 years. If the proportion achieving at least 50% excess weight loss was non-inferior (<12% difference between groups) and quality-of-life was superior, sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass were considered more effective than adjustable gastric banding, and sleeve gastrectomy more effective than Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Cost-effectiveness of the procedures was compared. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02841527, and ISRCTN, 00786323.
Results
Between Jan 16, 2013, and Sept 27, 2019, 1351 participants were randomly assigned; five withdrew consent and 1346 (mean age 47·3 [SD 10·6] years, 1020 [76%] women, 324 (24%) men, and two with missing data, mean weight of 129·7 kg [23·6] and mean BMI of 46·4 [6·9] kg/m2) were included in this report. Of 1346 participants, 462 (34%) were in the Roux-en-Y gastric bypass group, 464 (34%) in the adjustable gastric banding group, and 420 (31%) in the sleeve gastrectomy group. 1183 (88%) participants underwent surgery. 276 (68%) of 405 participants in the Roux-en-Y gastric bypass group, 97 (25%) of 383 participants in the adjustable gastric banding group and 141 (41%) of 342 participants in the sleeve gastrectomy group achieved at least 50% excess weight loss (adjusted risk difference: Roux-en-Y gastric bypass vs adjustable gastric banding 41% [98% CI 34 to 48]; sleeve gastrectomy vs adjustable gastric banding 15% [5 to 24]; sleeve gastrectomy vs Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, –26% [–36 to –16%]). Mean EQ-5D scores were 0·72 for Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, 0·62 for adjustable gastric banding, and 0·68 for sleeve gastrectomy (adjusted mean difference: Roux-en-Y gastric bypass vs adjustable gastric banding 0·08 [0·04 to 0·12], sleeve gastrectomy vs adjustable gastric banding 0·05 [0·01 to 0·09], and sleeve gastrectomy vs Roux-en-Y gastric bypass –0·03 [–0·07 to 0·01]). 1651 adverse events were reported following surgery (5·7 per year after sleeve gastrectomy, 6·0 per year after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, and 4·6 per year after adjustable gastric banding). There were 11 deaths from randomisation to 3 years: one attributable to surgery (in the adjustable gastric bypass group, during the surgical admission) and ten not attributable to surgery (four each in the Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and adjustable gastric banding groups and two in the sleeve gastrectomy group). Roux-en-Y gastric bypass was most cost-effective.
Interpretation
Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy are more effective than adjustable gastric banding. Sleeve gastrectomy has inferior weight loss and lower mean quality of life score compared with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Based on this evidence, it is recommended that patients electing to have metabolic and bariatric surgery are advised to have Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Where contraindicated or unfeasible, sleeve gastrectomy should be offered. This evidence does not support adjustable gastric band as standard treatment for severe obesity.National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Programme
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Get PDFThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Variations on the Author
Get PDF“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
Get PDFWe provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis
Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts
Get PDFWe conducted a full-scale evaluative citation analysis study of scholars in the XML research field to explore just how different from each other author rankings resulting from different citation counting methods actually are, and to demonstrate the capability of emerging data and tools on the Web in supporting more realistic citation counting methods. Our results contest some common arguments for the continued
use of first-author citation counts in the evaluation of scholars, such as high correlations between author rankings by first-author citation counts and other citation
counting methods, and high costs of using more realistic citation counting methods that are not well-supported by the ISI databases. It is argued that increasingly available digital full text research papers make it possible for citation analysis studies to go beyond what the ISI databases have directly supported and to employ more
sophisticated methods
koamabayili/VECTRON-author-checklist: VECTRON author checklist
No full textWe have done our best to complete the author checklist relating to the use of animals in the hut study. Note that the objective for the hut study was to evaluate the IRS treatment applications for residual efficacy against Anopheles mosquitoes, including the local An. coluzzii mosquito population. Cows were only used to attract mosquitoes into the huts and no tests were carried out directly on the cows. The author checklist is intended for use with studies where experiments are carried out on animals, which is why we have had such difficulty in completing this for the hut study, as many of the questions do not relate to how the cows were used
Author-wise bibliometric analysis based on entropy.
No full textAuthor-wise bibliometric analysis based on entropy.</p
- …
