↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Surgery for the treatment of obesity in children and adolescents

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
7 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
11 tweeters
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
517 Mendeley
Title
Surgery for the treatment of obesity in children and adolescents
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011740
Pubmed ID
Authors

Louisa J Ells, Emma Mead, Greg Atkinson, Eva Corpeleijn, Katharine Roberts, Russell Viner, Louise Baur, Maria-Inti Metzendorf, Bernd Richter

Abstract

Child and adolescent overweight and obesity have increased globally, and are associated with significant short and long term health consequences. To assess the effects of surgical interventions for treating obesity in childhood and adolescence. We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE as well as LILACS, ICTRP Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov (all from database inception to March 2015). References of identified studies and systematic reviews were checked. No language restrictions were applied. We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of surgical interventions for treating obesity in children and adolescents (age < 18 years) with a minimum of six months follow-up. Interventions that specifically dealt with the treatment of eating disorders or type 2 diabetes, or included participants with a secondary or syndromic cause of obesity were excluded. Pregnant females were also excluded. Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. Where necessary authors were contacted for additional information. We included one RCT (a total of 50 participants, 25 in both the intervention and comparator group). The intervention focused on laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding surgery, which was compared to a control group receiving a multi component lifestyle programme. The participating population consisted of Australian adolescents (a higher proportion of girls than boys) aged 14 to 18 years, with a mean age of 16.5 and 16.6 years in the gastric banding and lifestyle group, respectively which was conducted in a private hospital, receiving funding from the gastric banding manufacturer. The study authors were unable to blind participants, personnel and outcome assessors which may have resulted in a high risk of performance and detection bias. Attrition bias was noted as well. The study authors reported a mean reduction in weight of 34.6 kg (95% confidence interval (CI) 30.2 to 39.0) at two years, representing a change in body mass index (BMI) of 12.7 (95% CI 11.3 to 14.2) for the surgery intervention; and a mean reduction in weight of 3.0 kg (95% CI 2.1 to 8.1) representing a change in BMI of 1.3 (95% CI 0.4 to 2.9) for the lifestyle intervention. The differences between groups were statistically significant for all weight measures at 24 months (P < 0.001). The overall quality of the evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was low. Adverse events were reported in 12/25 (48%) participants in the intervention group compared to 11/25 (44%) in the control group (low quality evidence). A total of 28% of the adolescents undergoing gastric banding required revisional surgery. No data were reported for all-cause mortality, behaviour change, participants views of the intervention and socioeconomic effects. At two years, the gastric banding group performed better than the lifestyle group in two of eight health-related quality of life concepts (very low quality evidence) as measured by the Child Health Questionnaire (physical functioning score (94 versus 78, community norm 95) and change in health score (4.4 versus 3.6, community norm 3.5)). Laparoscopic gastric banding led to greater body weight loss compared to a multi component lifestyle program in one small study with 50 patients. These results do not provide enough data to assess efficacy across populations from different countries, socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds, who may respond differently. This systematic review highlights the lack of RCTs in this field. Future studies should assess the impact of the surgical procedure and post operative care to minimise adverse events, including the need for post operative adjustments and revisional surgery. Long-term follow-up is also critical to comprehensively assess the impact of surgery as participants enter adulthood.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 517 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 514 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 103 20%
Researcher 63 12%
Student > Bachelor 53 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 52 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 37 7%
Other 109 21%
Unknown 100 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 186 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 69 13%
Psychology 36 7%
Social Sciences 32 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 2%
Other 64 12%
Unknown 118 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 73. 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 14 June 2018.
All research outputs
#307,057
of 15,921,004 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#702
of 11,325 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,018
of 234,887 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#19
of 258 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,921,004 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,325 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
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 234,887 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 258 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.