Cross-sectional studycited by the Tayebat archiveabstract only checked A-BAR-19 standard review
Bones 10 years after bypass
Bone Density and Trabecular Morphology at Least 10 Years After Gastric Bypass and Gastric Banding.
Overview
Lindeman KG et al.. J Bone Miner Res 2020 · PMID 32663365 · DOI 10.1002/jbmr.4112
Bypass patients had weaker bone structure than people of the same weight; band patients did not.
Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: moderate
Plain-language summary
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Long-term bone
- How was the study done?
Cross-sectional
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
100
- What was actually found?
RYGB deficits
- How large was the observed effect?
see results
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Bypass may harm bone long-term
- What are the study's limitations?
Small
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Partly supports
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Applicable
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Sleeve effect
Scientific in-depth review
1. Full reference
- Authors
- Lindeman KG, Rushin CC, Cheney MC, Bouxsein ML, Hutter MM, Yu EW
- Journal
- J Bone Miner Res
- Year
- 2020
- Identifier
- PMID 32663365 DOI 10.1002/jbmr.4112
- 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: Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, NIDDK NIH HHS, NIH HHS
2. Research question
Bone density and microarchitecture a decade after RYGB and AGB
3. Study design and population
- Study design
- Cross-sectional study – Cross-sectional matched study >=10 years after surgery
- Population
25 RYGB, 25 AGB, BMI-matched controls
- Country
USA
- Period
>=10 years post-surgery
- Sample size
50 (25 RYGB + 25 AGB) + 50 BMI-matched controls (1:1)
4. Methods and endpoints
- Exposure / intervention
RYGB or AGB
- Comparator
Controls matched for age, sex, current BMI
- Endpoints
BMD, microarchitecture, turnover
5. Actual results
- Results
RYGB: lower hip BMD, lower volumetric BMD at radius/tibia, microarchitecture deficits, CTX +99%, P1NP +77% vs controls. AGB: no differences.
- Absolute risks
not reported
- Authors' conclusion
RYGB, not AGB, associated with lower-than-expected BMD and deleterious microarchitecture.
6. Strengths
- BMI-matched controls
- HR-pQCT
7. Weaknesses
- Small
- Cross-sectional
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-06 for RYGB.
11. Independent contrary findings
12. Transferability to Germany and Europe
Applicable.
13. Overall methodological judgement
Supports procedure-specific bone harm.
| Multidimensional assessment | |
|---|---|
| Authenticity of the source | verified |
| Methodological quality | moderate |
| Risk of bias | some concerns |
| Precision of results | low |
| Directness | direct |
| Reproducibility | partly replicated |
| Consistency with the overall evidence | consistent |
| Regional transferability | moderate |
| Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive) | not applicable |
14. Open questions
15. Linked fact checks
- Bariatric surgery causes measurable hip and spine bone loss (and fracture risk). – Studies supporting the claim
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?
Long-term bone after RYGB/AGB
- B. What did the authors find?
Deficits after RYGB only
- C. What conclusions do the authors themselves draw?
As found
- D. What does the archive derive from it?
Bone loss narrative.
- E. Is this derivation scientifically justified?
Supports for RYGB; not for banding; sleeve not studied.
- Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive)
- not applicable