NCBS: Post-operative Energy Needs (2017)

Author and Year:
Adams T, Pendleton R et al, 2010
PubMed ID:
Article Title:
Health outcomes of gastric bypass patients compared to nonsurgical, nonintervened severely obese.
Authors:
Adams T, Pendleton R, Strong M, Kolotkin R, Walker J, Litwin S, Berjaoui W, LaMonte M, Cloward T, Avelar E, Owan T, Nuttall R, Gress R, Crosby R, Hopkins P, Brinton E, Rosamond W, Wiebke G, Yanowitz F, Farney R, Halverson R, Simper S, Smith S, Hunt S
Journal:
Obesity (Silver Spring, Md.)
Year of publication:
2010
Volume:
18
Issue:
1
Page numbers:
121-130
Study Design:
Case Control Study
Risk of Bias Assessment Rating:
Positive
Inclusion Criteria:
Severly obese (BMI at least 35kg/m2) patients who had not had bariatric surgery in the past and were willing to participate in the study.
Exclusion Criteria:
Previous gastric surgery for weight loss Gastric or duodenal ulcers in the previous six months Active cancer within the past five years (except for non-melanoma skin cancer) Myocardial infarction in the previous six months History of alcohol or narcotic abuse.
Research Purpose:
Determine health outcomes following gastric bypass surgery in comparison to severely obese subjects, seeking and not seeking gastric bypass surgery.
Blinding efforts:
N/A.
Study Location:
Salt Lake City, Utah
Source(s) of Funding:
Government
Please specify names of funders:
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and the National Center for Research Resources.
Quality Criteria Checklist: Primary Research
Relevance Questions
  1. Would implementing the studied intervention or procedure (if found successful) result in improved outcomes for the patients/clients/population group? (Not Applicable for some epidemiological studies) Yes
  2. Did the authors study an outcome (dependent variable) or topic that the patients/clients/population group would care about? Yes
  3. Is the focus of the intervention or procedure (independent variable) or topic of study a common issue of concern to dieteticspractice? Yes
  4. Is the intervention or procedure feasible? (NA for some epidemiological studies) Yes
 
Validity Questions
1. Was the research question clearly stated? Yes
  1.1. Was (were) the specific intervention(s) or procedure(s) [independent variable(s)] identified? Yes
  1.2. Was (were) the outcome(s) [dependent variable(s)] clearly indicated? Yes
  1.3. Were the target population and setting specified? Yes
2. Was the selection of study subjects/patients free from bias? Yes
  2.1. Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified (e.g., risk, point in disease progression, diagnostic or prognosis criteria), and with sufficient detail and without omitting criteria critical to the study? Yes
  2.2. Were criteria applied equally to all study groups? Yes
  2.3. Were health, demographics, and other characteristics of subjects described? Yes
  2.4. Were the subjects/patients a representative sample of the relevant population? Yes
6. Were intervention/therapeutic regimens/exposure factor or procedure and any comparison(s) described in detail? Were interveningfactors described? Yes
  6.1. In RCT or other intervention trial, were protocols described for all regimens studied? ???
  6.2. In observational study, were interventions, study settings, and clinicians/provider described? ???
  6.3. Was the intensity and duration of the intervention or exposure factor sufficient to produce a meaningful effect? Yes
  6.4. Was the amount of exposure and, if relevant, subject/patient compliance measured? ???
  6.5. Were co-interventions (e.g., ancillary treatments, other therapies) described? No
  6.7. Was the information for 6.4, 6.5, and 6.6 assessed the same way for all groups? Yes
7. Were outcomes clearly defined and the measurements valid and reliable? Yes
  7.1. Were primary and secondary endpoints described and relevant to the question? Yes
  7.2. Were nutrition measures appropriate to question and outcomes of concern? Yes
  7.3. Was the period of follow-up long enough for important outcome(s) to occur? Yes
  7.4. Were the observations and measurements based on standard, valid, and reliable data collection instruments/tests/procedures? Yes
  7.5. Was the measurement of effect at an appropriate level of precision? Yes
  7.6. Were other factors accounted for (measured) that could affect outcomes? Yes
8. Was the statistical analysis appropriate for the study design and type of outcome indicators? Yes
  8.1. Were statistical analyses adequately described and the results reported appropriately? Yes
  8.2. Were correct statistical tests used and assumptions of test not violated? Yes
  8.3. Were statistics reported with levels of significance and/or confidence intervals? Yes
  8.5. Were adequate adjustments made for effects of confounding factors that might have affected the outcomes (e.g., multivariate analyses)? Yes
  8.6. Was clinical significance as well as statistical significance reported? Yes
9. Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? Yes
  9.1. Is there a discussion of findings? Yes
  9.2. Are biases and study limitations identified and discussed? Yes
10. Is bias due to study's funding or sponsorship unlikely? Yes
  10.1. Were sources of funding and investigators' affiliations described? Yes
  10.2. Was the study free from apparent conflict of interest? Yes