Cohort studyindependent cross-checkabstract checked I-BAR-129 standard review

US veterans: suicidal thoughts and attempts after surgery

Bariatric Surgery and Suicide Risk in Patients With Obesity.

Overview

Hung et al.. Ann Surg 2023 · PMID 36805965 · DOI 10.1097/SLA.0000000000005825

Suicide attempts were about 60% more frequent after bypass or sleeve than in similar veterans without 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?

Suicidality after RYGB/SG

How was the study done?

Matched cohort

How many people, animals or samples were studied?

~38,000

What was actually found?

Ideation aHR 1.21; attempts aHR 1.62

How large was the observed effect?

aHR 1.62

What do the results mean in everyday life?

Screen mental health after surgery

What are the study's limitations?

Mostly men

What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

Supports the claim

Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

Moderate

What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

Causation

Scientific in-depth review

1. Full reference

Authors
Hung et al.
Journal
Ann Surg
Year
2023
Identifier
PMID 36805965 DOI 10.1097/SLA.0000000000005825
Verification
verified – PubMed efetch 2026-10-26 + Crossref API
Retracted
no
Corrections
none
Extent checked
abstract only
Conflicts of interest and funding

COI statement (PubMed record): M.L.M. reports research grants for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Service outside of the submitted work, and ownership of Amgen stock due to his spouse’s employment. D.E.A. reports research grants from NIH and PCORI outside of the submitted work. The disclosure list was shortened here; the complete statement is in the original publication.

2. Research question

Are 5-year rates of suicidal ideation and attempts higher after RYGB or sleeve than in matched nonsurgical controls?

3. Study design and population

Study design
Cohort study – Retrospective matched cohort (US Veterans Affairs), sequential stratification
Population

Veterans with severe obesity (78.7% men)

Country

USA

Period

FY2000-2016

Sample size

38,199 (ideation cohort); 38,661 (attempt cohort)

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Excluded past-year outcome events

4. Methods and endpoints

Exposure / intervention

RYGB or LSG

Comparator

Matched nonsurgical veterans

Endpoints

Suicidal ideation; suicide attempt

Statistical methods

Cox regression with robust variance

5. Actual results

Results

Suicidal ideation aHR 1.21 (1.03-1.41); suicide attempt aHR 1.62 (1.22-2.15). Over 40% treated for depression at baseline.

Absolute risks

not reported in abstract

Authors' conclusion

Bariatric surgery appears associated with greater risk of suicidal ideation and attempts; careful monitoring and psychological support needed.

6. Strengths

  • Includes sleeve patients
  • Matched controls

7. Weaknesses

  • Mostly male veterans
  • Procedure-specific estimates not in abstract

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
Rationale

Observational; coding of ideation.

9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation

Moderate relative increases.

10. Relevance to the specific claim

Extends the suicide-risk finding to a cohort that includes sleeve gastrectomy.

11. Independent contrary findings

12. Transferability to Germany and Europe

US veterans.

13. Overall methodological judgement

Supports C-BAR-07.

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 transferabilitymoderate
Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive)not applicable

14. Open questions

Sleeve vs bypass difference.

15. Linked fact checks