↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

How do patients’ clinical phenotype and the physiological mechanisms of the operations impact the choice of bariatric procedure?

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
Title
How do patients’ clinical phenotype and the physiological mechanisms of the operations impact the choice of bariatric procedure?
Published in
Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology, July 2016
DOI 10.2147/ceg.s87205
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas Bächler, Carel W le Roux, Marco Bueter

Abstract

Bariatric surgery is currently the most effective option for the treatment of morbid obesity and its associated comorbidities. Recent clinical and experimental findings have challenged the role of mechanical restriction and caloric malabsorption as the main mechanisms for weight loss and health benefits. Instead, other mechanisms including increased levels of satiety gut hormones, altered gut microbiota, changes in bile acid metabolism, and/or energy expenditure have been proposed as explanations for benefits of bariatric surgery. Beside the standard proximal Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and the biliopancreatic diversion with or without duodenal switch, where parts of the small intestine are excluded from contact with nutrients, resectional techniques like the sleeve gastrectomy (SG) have recently been added to the armory of bariatric surgeons. The variation of weight loss and glycemic control is vast between but also within different bariatric operations. We surveyed members of the Swiss Society for the Study of Morbid Obesity and Metabolic Disorders to assess the extent to which the phenotype of patients influences the choice of bariatric procedure. Swiss bariatric surgeons preferred Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and SG for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and patients with a body mass index >50 kg/m(2), which is consistent with the literature. An SG was preferred in patients with a high anesthetic risk or previous laparotomy. The surgeons' own experience was a major determinant as there is little evidence in the literature for this approach. Although trends will come and go, evidence-based medicine requires a rigorous examination of the proof to inform clinical practice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 13%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Student > Postgraduate 5 10%
Researcher 4 8%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 13 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 29%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 4%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 13 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 August 2016.
All research outputs
#22,758,309
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology
#279
of 331 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#323,534
of 367,266 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology
#10
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 331 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 367,266 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.