Bariatric surgery has emerged as an important tool in the fight against morbid obesity. However, reviewers have noted that there is a scarcity of long-term clinical surveillance data for bariatric surgery beyond 1-year follow-up and that a high percentage of patients are lost to follow-up, raising questions regarding the accuracy of current outcomes estimates. A meta-analysis of clinical reports providing bariatric surgery weight loss outcomes for morbidly obese patients was conducted over the period 2003-2007. Studies included were randomized controlled trials, nonrandomized controlled trials, and consecutive case series involving patients receiving either laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) or laparoscopic gastric bypass (LGB) surgery. Included studies involved n = 7,383 patients and were largely academic hospital-based (78.6%) and retrospective in design (71.4%). Weight loss outcome was defined by percent excess weight loss (%EWL). Composite estimates showed a significantly greater %EWL for LGB surgery (62.6%) compared to LAGB (49.4%). The superiority of LGB persisted at all three postsurgical time points examined (1, 2, and >3 years). Problems were identified regarding incomplete or suboptimal data reporting in many studies reviewed, and high patient attrition was evident at 2-year (49.8% LAGB, 75.2% LGB) and >3-year (82.6% LAGB, 89% LGB) end points. This meta-analysis confirms the superiority of LGB to LAGB in %EWL found in earlier studies. Although problems in study quality raised significant concerns regarding the validity of current weight loss estimates in this area, there was no evidence of publication bias.
Technology and improved care coordination models can help diabetes educators and providers meet national care standards and provide culturally sensitive diabetes education that may improve diabetes outcomes. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the clinical usefulness of a nurse-led diabetes care program (Comprehensive Diabetes Management Program, CDMP) for poorly controlled Hispanic type 2 diabetes (T2DM) patients in an urban community health center setting. Patients were randomized to the intervention condition (IC; n = 21) or an attention control condition (AC; n = 18). IC and AC conditions were compared on rates of adherence to national clinical practice guidelines (blood glucose, blood pressure, foot exam, eye exam), and levels of diabetes distress, depression, and treatment satisfaction. IC patients had a significant improvement in A1C from baseline to 12-month follow-up compared with AC (-1.6% ± 1.4% versus -0.6% ± 1.1%; P = .01). The proportion of IC patients meeting clinical goals at follow-up tended to be higher than AC for A1c (IC = 45%; AC = 28%), systolic blood pressure (IC = 55%; AC = 28%), eye screening (IC = 91%; AC = 78%), and foot screening, (IC = 86%; AC = 72%). Diabetes distress and treatment satisfaction also showed greater improvement for IC than AC (P = .05 and P = .06, respectively), with no differences for depression. The CDMP intervention was more effective than an attention control condition in helping patients meet evidence-based guidelines for diabetes care.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.