Bariatric surgeries have been identified as perhaps the most successful means for people who are morbidly obese to lose weight, and use of these procedures is increasing, according to the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery. Information about whether the weight-loss results last, and for how long, is a useful addition to the growing medical literature on these surgeries.
The study described here by HealthDay speaks directly to the issue in a couple of well-designed analyses, and the story does a good job of explaining both the methods and the results. Missing from an otherwise good narrative is information about the risks of these procedures, as well as their costs and overall availability to the general public.
Obesity is a major health issue in the United States, and the use of bariatric surgical procedures is being used increasingly for those who are morbidly obese. Knowing how long people keep the weight off–and by how much—is useful for those deciding whether to opt into the procedure. Also of interest is if the health benefits, such as remission of type 2 diabetes, were sustained, though this study didn’t appear to investigate that.
Cost is not a component of this story. That is an issue, as the story compares three weight-loss surgical options for morbidly obese individuals, and readers might well be interested in the economics. Also, it would be useful to discuss the costs of not having surgery in the matched population.
The story does a nice job of making the weight loss comparisons—both over time for gastric bypass surgery and across surgical options—clear.
The story makes no mention of harms. Bariatric procedures can lead to an array of complications that are worth considering. And on the flip side, it’s worth noting that research also has indicated that bariatric surgery can both extend quantity and quality of life when compared to not having surgery.
Details of the two-part study conducted here are included and clearly described. And we were also pleased to see several study limitations discussed: “For example, the study included mostly men, so the findings may not apply to women.”
That said, we do wish more had been said about the study participants, such as average body mass index levels before and after the surgeries.
Morbid obesity is a major and growing health issue with frustratingly few treatment options.
Sources are clearly identified, along with information about their links to the study itself (one scientist was the study’s lead researcher, and the other quoted in the story was independent).
This is another strong point of the story. The study compared the longer term weight-loss outcomes of the three primary bariatric surgical procedures.
The story doesn’t make it readily clear how accessible these surgeries are, and who is a good candidate for one. Typically, these procedures are for people over a certain body-mass index, for example. And insurance coverage may or may not pay for it.
The story is clear that this study contributes to a growing set of data about long-term weight-loss effects of these surgeries.
Duke Medicine issued a news release, and the HealthDay story does not rely solely on it.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
Comments (2)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Linda Bacon
September 16, 2016 at 8:39 pmI was so disappointed with this analysis. You missed a major point: they only reported results for 1/3 of the participants! Since research consistently suggests that people don’t report for follow up if they feel like they failed, this suggests that the majority regained the weight, which is consistent with what is seen in most weight loss studies. That suggests to me that this study actually proved that purported long term weight loss from bariatric surgery is a lie.
Joy Victory
September 17, 2016 at 6:03 amThe story — wisely — pointed the drop-out rate out as a limitation; therefore, there wasn’t a need for us to point it out.
Drop-out rates are a common limitation across many types of research, not just bariatric surgeries. Here is what they said:
“At 10 years, the researchers had weight information on 564 of the nearly 1,800 patients who had the gastric bypass.”
and
“Another possible limitation was the loss of patients during the follow-up, which could have affected the results, the researchers noted.”
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like