Cohort studycited by the Tayebat archiveabstract only checked A-BAR-11 standard review
Ulcers after gastric bypass
Risk Factors for Marginal Ulcer After Gastric Bypass Surgery for Obesity: A Population-based Cohort Study.
Overview
Sverdén E et al.. Ann Surg 2016 · PMID 26106845 · DOI 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001300
Diabetes and earlier ulcers increased the risk of ulcers at the new stomach connection.
Does the study support the specific claim? Unclear · Methodological quality: moderate
Plain-language summary
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Risk factors
- How was the study done?
Registry cohort
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
20,294
- What was actually found?
See results
- How large was the observed effect?
HR 1.26-2.70
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Ulcers are a known complication
- What are the study's limitations?
Registry coding
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Indirect
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
European
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Incidence vs non-surgery
Scientific in-depth review
1. Full reference
- Authors
- Sverdén E, Mattsson F, Sondén A, Leinsköld T, Tao W, Lu Y, Lagergren J
- Journal
- Ann Surg
- Year
- 2016
- Identifier
- PMID 26106845 DOI 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001300
- Verification
- verified – PubMed E-utilities efetch, 2026-10-25
- Retracted
- no
- Corrections
- none
- Extent checked
- abstract only
- Conflicts of interest and funding
COI: not stated in record | Grants: none listed
2. Research question
Risk factors for marginal ulcer after gastric bypass
3. Study design and population
- Study design
- Cohort study – Population-based cohort (Swedish registers)
- Population
Gastric bypass patients
- Country
Sweden
- Period
2006-2011
- Sample size
20,294
4. Methods and endpoints
- Exposure / intervention
Comorbidities and drugs
- Comparator
Non-exposed bypass patients
- Endpoints
Marginal ulcer
- Statistical methods
Multivariable Cox
5. Actual results
- Results
Diabetes HR 1.26 (1.03-1.55); peptic ulcer history HR 2.70 (1.81-4.03); PPI users HR 1.37 (1.17-1.60), possibly confounding by indication; high-dose aspirin HR 1.90.
- Absolute risks
not reported
- Authors' conclusion
Diabetes and ulcer history are risk factors; PPI association may be confounding by indication.
6. Strengths
- Population-based
- Large
7. Weaknesses
- Register data
8. Risk of bias
- Orienting tool
- ROBINS-E
- Type of assessment
- simplified assessment (abstract only)
- Full formal assessment
- no
- Overall risk of bias
- some concerns
9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation
10. Relevance to the specific claim
Indirect; documents a bypass complication.
11. Independent contrary findings
12. Transferability to Germany and Europe
European.
13. Overall methodological judgement
Sound registry study; marginal relevance.
| Multidimensional assessment | |
|---|---|
| Authenticity of the source | verified |
| Methodological quality | moderate |
| Risk of bias | some concerns |
| Precision of results | moderate |
| Directness | indirect |
| Reproducibility | unknown |
| Consistency with the overall evidence | consistent |
| Regional transferability | high |
| Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive) | not applicable |
14. Open questions
15. Linked fact checks
Use by the Tayebat archive
Note: according to the archive, the studies were compiled by the archive operators. Whether Dr. Elawady himself cited this study is not established.
- What the archive says about the study
Listed in the archive bibliography only; the archive gives no specific interpretation.
- A. What was actually studied?
Marginal ulcer risk factors
- B. What did the authors find?
Diabetes, ulcer history
- C. What conclusions do the authors themselves draw?
As found
- D. What does the archive derive from it?
General complication list.
- E. Is this derivation scientifically justified?
Not specifically used.
- Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive)
- not applicable