Máxima Medical Center, Eindhoven/Veldhoven, The Netherlands.
Obes Surg. 2019 Feb;29(2):691-697. doi: 10.1007/s11695-018-3610-4.
Lack of standard definitions of primary and secondary (non)responders after RYGB and SG makes it impossible to compare the literature. The aim was to analyze the different definitions used. MEDLINE® was searched for literature published between 01-07-2014 and 01-07-2017 concerning (1) patients who received a primary RYGB or SG and (2) the outcomes of primary and secondary (non)responders. One hundred twelve out of 650 papers were eligible. Forty out of 47 papers described a definition of weight loss success. Sixty-seven out of 112 papers mentioned weight loss failure of which 42 described a definition, in total 23 different definitions. Weight regain was mentioned in 77 papers; only 21 papers provided a definition. The recent literature regarding definitions of these outcomes is highly inconsistent. To compare the literature international consensus is required.
RYGB 和 SG 后原发性和继发性(无)应答者缺乏标准定义,使得文献无法进行比较。目的是分析使用的不同定义。对 2014 年 7 月 1 日至 2017 年 7 月 1 日发表的有关(1)接受原发性 RYGB 或 SG 的患者和(2)原发性和继发性(无)应答者结局的文献进行了 MEDLINE®检索。从 650 篇论文中筛选出 112 篇符合条件的论文。47 篇论文中有 40 篇描述了体重减轻成功的定义。112 篇论文中有 67 篇提到了体重减轻失败,其中 42 篇描述了定义,总共 23 个不同的定义。有 77 篇论文提到了体重反弹,只有 21 篇论文提供了定义。关于这些结果的定义,最近的文献非常不一致。需要国际共识来比较文献。