Meta-analysisindependent cross-checkabstract checked★ key study I-BAR-110 in-depth review

Meta-analysis: reflux 4+ years after sleeve

Meta-analysis of Long-term De Novo Acid Reflux-Related Outcomes Following Sleeve Gastrectomy: Evidence Against the Need for Routine Postoperative Endoscopic Surveillance.

Overview

Hajibandeh et al.. Curr Obes Rep 2023 · PMID 37535236 · DOI 10.1007/s13679-023-00521-4

About 1 in 4 developed new reflux and about 7 in 100 had Barrett changes; authors think the Barrett figure may be too high.

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

Original publication

Plain-language summary

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

Long-term reflux complications

How was the study done?

Meta-analysis

How many people, animals or samples were studied?

7,904 patients

What was actually found?

GORD 24.8%, BE 6.7%

How large was the observed effect?

Proportions

What do the results mean in everyday life?

Most patients do not get new reflux

What are the study's limitations?

Reporting bias

What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

Contradicts "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
Hajibandeh et al.
Journal
Curr Obes Rep
Year
2023
Identifier
PMID 37535236 DOI 10.1007/s13679-023-00521-4
Verification
verified – PubMed efetch 2026-10-26 + Crossref API
Retracted
no
Corrections
none
Extent checked
abstract only
Conflicts of interest and funding

not stated in abstract

2. Research question

What is the long-term risk of de novo GORD, oesophagitis and Barrett after sleeve gastrectomy, and is routine endoscopic surveillance needed?

3. Study design and population

Study design
Meta-analysis – Systematic review and proportion meta-analysis of studies with >=4 y follow-up
Population

Patients after primary SG followed >=4 y

Country

Multinational

Period

Median follow-up 60 months (48-132)

Sample size

32 observational studies, 7,904 patients

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Primary SG, >=4 y follow-up

4. Methods and endpoints

Exposure / intervention

Sleeve gastrectomy

Comparator

None (proportions)

Endpoints

De novo GORD, oesophagitis, Barrett oesophagus

Statistical methods

Random-effects proportion meta-analysis

5. Actual results

Results

Preoperative reflux symptoms 19.1%. De novo GORD 24.8% (18.6-31.0), oesophagitis 27.9% (17.7-38.1), Barrett 6.7% (3.7-9.7); significant heterogeneity. Many studies did not report BE/oesophagitis, which may inflate pooled estimates.

Absolute risks

De novo GORD about 1 in 4; de novo Barrett about 7 in 100 (possibly overestimated).

Authors' conclusion

Long-term de novo GORD after SG seems comparable with the general population; surveillance endoscopy recommended for symptomatic patients only.

6. Strengths

  • Restricted to >=4 y follow-up

7. Weaknesses

  • Observational only
  • Reporting bias acknowledged by authors
  • Comparison with general population not formally tested in the abstract

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 I-BAR-04 and I-BAR-109.

9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation

Proportions with wide CIs; I2 high.

10. Relevance to the specific claim

Shows that most sleeve patients do not develop de novo GORD; also gives a BE estimate the authors consider possibly inflated.

11. Independent contrary findings

Other meta-analyses favour surveillance.

12. Transferability to Germany and Europe

International.

13. Overall methodological judgement

Moderate evidence that reflux is common but not inevitable.

Multidimensional assessment
Multidimensional assessment
Authenticity of the sourceverified
Methodological qualitymoderate
Risk of biassome concerns
Precision of resultsmoderate
Directnessdirect
Reproducibilityreplicated
Consistency with the overall evidenceconsistent
Regional transferabilityhigh
Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive)not applicable

14. Open questions

Need for routine surveillance.

15. Linked fact checks