Cohort studycited by the Tayebat archiveabstract only checked★ key study A-BAR-15 in-depth review

Self-harm emergencies after surgery in Ontario

Self-harm Emergencies After Bariatric Surgery: A Population-Based Cohort Study.

Overview

Bhatti JA et al.. JAMA Surg 2016 · PMID 26444444 · DOI 10.1001/jamasurg.2015.3414

Emergency visits for self-harm rose from 2.33 to 3.63 per 1000 patient-years after surgery.

Does the study support the specific claim? Yes · Methodological quality: moderate

Original publication

Plain-language summary

Study explained simply
What did the researchers want to find out?

Self-harm risk

How was the study done?

Self-matched cohort

How many people, animals or samples were studied?

8815

What was actually found?

Increase after surgery

How large was the observed effect?

RR 1.54

What do the results mean in everyday life?

A rare but real risk, mostly in people with prior mental illness

What are the study's limitations?

No external control

What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

Supports

Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

Applicable

What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

Causation

Scientific in-depth review

1. Full reference

Authors
Bhatti JA, Nathens AB, Thiruchelvam D, Grantcharov T, Goldstein BI, Redelmeier DA
Journal
JAMA Surg
Year
2016
Identifier
PMID 26444444 DOI 10.1001/jamasurg.2015.3414
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: Canadian Institutes of Health Research

2. Research question

Self-harm emergencies before vs after bariatric surgery

3. Study design and population

Study design
Cohort study – Population-based self-matched (before-after) cohort
Population

Ontario adults undergoing bariatric surgery (98.5% gastric bypass)

Country

Canada

Period

2006-2011 surgery; 3 years before/after

Sample size

8815

4. Methods and endpoints

Exposure / intervention

Post-surgery period

Comparator

Pre-surgery period (same patients)

Endpoints

Self-harm emergency visits

Statistical methods

Rate ratio

5. Actual results

Results

Self-harm emergencies 3.63 vs 2.33 per 1000 patient-years after vs before, RR 1.54 (1.03-2.30). Higher in >35 years RR 1.76, low income RR 2.09, rural RR 6.49. 72.8% intentional overdose; 93.0% of events in patients with a mental health diagnosis in the 5 years before surgery.

Absolute risks

Absolute increase about 1.3 per 1000 patient-years (3.63 - 2.33, calculated from reported rates)

Authors' conclusion

Risk of self-harm emergencies increased after surgery; screening for suicide risk during follow-up needed.

6. Strengths

  • Population-based
  • Self-matched design controls stable personal factors

7. Weaknesses

  • Time trends not controlled
  • Only gastric bypass
  • Wide CI

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

Supports C-BAR-07.

11. Independent contrary findings

12. Transferability to Germany and Europe

Applicable.

13. Overall methodological judgement

Correctly cited (EN); AR typo; context on absolute risk missing.

Multidimensional assessment
Multidimensional assessment
Authenticity of the sourceverified
Methodological qualitymoderate
Risk of biassome concerns
Precision of resultslow
Directnessdirect
Reproducibilityreplicated
Consistency with the overall evidenceconsistent
Regional transferabilitymoderate
Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive)essentially correct but incomplete

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

Self-harm emergencies rose ~50% after bariatric surgery in 8,815 Ontario adults (3.63 vs 2.33 per 1000 patient-years; RR 1.54).

A. What was actually studied?

Self-harm before vs after

B. What did the authors find?

RR 1.54

C. What conclusions do the authors themselves draw?

Risk increased; screening needed

D. What does the archive derive from it?

Used to document self-harm risk.

E. Is this derivation scientifically justified?

English numbers correct. The Arabic headline contains a typo (3.63 vs 2.63 instead of 2.33). The archive does not mention that 93% of events occurred in patients with prior mental health diagnoses or that absolute rates are low.

Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive)
essentially correct but incomplete