Meta-analysisindependent cross-checkabstract only checked★ key study I-BAR-04 in-depth review

Meta-analysis: Barrett's after sleeve

Risk of De Novo Barrett's Esophagus Post Sleeve Gastrectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Studies With Long-Term Follow-Up.

Overview

Chandan S et al.. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2025 · PMID 39059544 · DOI 10.1016/j.cgh.2024.06.041

About 5.6% developed new Barrett's esophagus; reflux and acid-medication use were about 3 times more frequent after sleeve.

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?

BE after SG

How was the study done?

Meta-analysis

How many people, animals or samples were studied?

2046

What was actually found?

BE 5.6%; GERD x3

How large was the observed effect?

RR GERD 3.32

What do the results mean in everyday life?

Reflux is a major downside of sleeve

What are the study's limitations?

Heterogeneous observational

What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

Supports reflux/BE claim, not 'inevitable'

Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

Applicable

What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

Cancer risk

Scientific in-depth review

1. Full reference

Authors
Chandan S et al.
Journal
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol
Year
2025
Identifier
PMID 39059544 DOI 10.1016/j.cgh.2024.06.041
Verification
verified – PubMed efetch 2026-10-25
Retracted
no
Corrections
none
Extent checked
abstract only
Conflicts of interest and funding

not stated in abstract

2. Research question

Incidence of de novo Barrett's esophagus after SG

3. Study design and population

Study design
Meta-analysis – Systematic review and meta-analysis
Population

SG patients

Country

Multinational

Period

Search April 2024

Sample size

19 studies, 2046 patients

4. Methods and endpoints

Exposure / intervention

SG

Comparator

Pre-SG status

Endpoints

De novo BE, esophagitis, GERD, PPI use, hiatal hernia

5. Actual results

Results

Pooled de novo BE 5.6% (3.5-8.8). Higher post-SG rates of erosive esophagitis RR 3.37, hiatal hernia RR 2.09, GERD symptoms RR 3.32, PPI use RR 3.65. GERD symptoms associated with BE rates.

Absolute risks

De novo BE 5.6%

Authors' conclusion

SG results in a significantly increased risk of de novo BE and higher esophagitis, PPI use and hiatal hernia; routine screening suggested.

6. Strengths

  • Long-term studies only
  • Meta-regression

7. Weaknesses

  • Mostly observational, heterogeneous
  • Pre-post comparison, no non-surgical control
  • Includes A-BAR-08/09 type studies

8. Risk of bias

Orienting tool
AMSTAR 2
Type of assessment
simplified assessment (abstract only)
Full formal assessment
no
Overall risk of bias
some concerns
Rationale

Overlaps with archive-cited cohorts (Felsenreich, Sebastianelli likely included); not independent confirmation.

9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation

10. Relevance to the specific claim

Supports C-BAR-02 and C-BAR-04.

11. Independent contrary findings

12. Transferability to Germany and Europe

Includes European cohorts.

13. Overall methodological judgement

Supports GERD increase; BE magnitude moderately uncertain.

Multidimensional assessment
Multidimensional assessment
Authenticity of the sourceverified
Methodological qualitymoderate
Risk of biassome concerns
Precision of resultsmoderate
Directnessdirect
Reproducibilitypartly replicated
Consistency with the overall evidencemixed
Regional transferabilitymoderate
Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive)not applicable

14. Open questions

15. Linked fact checks