 |
|
Systematic Review of Bariatric Surgery
|
|
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
|
|
To the Editor: We are concerned that the systematic review and meta-analysis of bariatric surgery by Dr Buchwald and colleagues1 did not describe the quality of the included studies. A formal assessment of data quality, even after study selection is complete, is a critical step in conducting a systematic review.2-4 In this review, study quality was considered only through the use of inclusion criteria. These particular criteria did not ensure that the included studies were of high quality. For example, some of the included studies were retrospective, some may have used self-reported weights, and some analyzed only a subset of the total population of patients who received surgery and may have differed in important ways from the full population of enrolled patients. These quality concerns mean that, although patients lost weight after surgery, caution is required when interpreting the meta-analytic point estimates. Also at issue is that combined data . . . [Full Text of this Article]
Jonathan R. Treadwell, PhD
jtreadwell@ecri.org
Charles M. Turkelson, PhD
ECRI Evidence-Based Practice Center
Plymouth Meeting, Pa
RELATED ARTICLES
Systematic Review of Bariatric Surgery
C. David Sjöström
JAMA. 2005;293(14):1726.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Systematic Review of Bariatric Surgery—Reply
Henry Buchwald, Yoav Avidor, Eugene Braunwald, Michael D. Jensen, Walter Pories, Kyle Fahrbach, and Karen Schoelles
JAMA. 2005;293(14):1726.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Bariatric Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Henry Buchwald, Yoav Avidor, Eugene Braunwald, Michael D. Jensen, Walter Pories, Kyle Fahrbach, and Karen Schoelles
JAMA. 2004;292(14):1724-1737.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
