BACKGROUND: Although it is recognized that a standardized approach to reporting weight change is essential to meaningful comparisons among cohorts and across studies, consensus is lacking. This study aimed to propose a method of reporting weight change that would allow meaningful comparisons among studies of patients who underwent bariatric surgery and to demonstrate its utility using an example from the Longitudinal Assessment of Bariatric Surgery (LABS). METHODS: Relationships among several measures of weight change are described. Results from an observational, longitudinal cohort study of adults undergoing bariatric surgery and from simulation studies are used to illustrate the proposed method. RESULTS: Baseline weight is a critical parameter when assessing weight change. Men undergoing a bariatric procedure other than gastric bypass or adjustable band tended to have greater weight loss 12 months after surgery than men undergoing gastric bypass when not accounting for baseline weight, but the opposite was found when results were adjusted for baseline weight. Simulation results show that with relatively modest sample sizes, the adjusted weight loss was significantly different between the 2 groups of men. CONCLUSION: A consistent metric for reporting weight loss after bariatric surgery is essential to interpret outcomes across studies and among subgroups. The baseline weight adjusted percent of weight loss (A%WL) uses a standard population (e.g., the LABS cohort) to account for differences between cohorts with respect to baseline weight, and its use can change the interpretation of results compared with an unadjusted measure.
BACKGROUND: Although it is recognized that a standardized approach to reporting weight change is essential to meaningful comparisons among cohorts and across studies, consensus is lacking. This study aimed to propose a method of reporting weight change that would allow meaningful comparisons among studies of patients who underwent bariatric surgery and to demonstrate its utility using an example from the Longitudinal Assessment of Bariatric Surgery (LABS). METHODS: Relationships among several measures of weight change are described. Results from an observational, longitudinal cohort study of adults undergoing bariatric surgery and from simulation studies are used to illustrate the proposed method. RESULTS: Baseline weight is a critical parameter when assessing weight change. Men undergoing a bariatric procedure other than gastric bypass or adjustable band tended to have greater weight loss 12 months after surgery than men undergoing gastric bypass when not accounting for baseline weight, but the opposite was found when results were adjusted for baseline weight. Simulation results show that with relatively modest sample sizes, the adjusted weight loss was significantly different between the 2 groups of men. CONCLUSION: A consistent metric for reporting weight loss after bariatric surgery is essential to interpret outcomes across studies and among subgroups. The baseline weight adjusted percent of weight loss (A%WL) uses a standard population (e.g., the LABS cohort) to account for differences between cohorts with respect to baseline weight, and its use can change the interpretation of results compared with an unadjusted measure.
Authors: Steven H Belle; Paul D Berk; Anita P Courcoulas; David R Flum; Carolyn W Miles; James E Mitchell; Walter J Pories; Bruce M Wolfe; Susan Z Yanovski Journal: Surg Obes Relat Dis Date: 2007 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 4.734
Authors: David Reed Flum; Steven H Belle; Wendy C King; Abdus S Wahed; Paul Berk; William Chapman; Walter Pories; Anita Courcoulas; Carol McCloskey; James Mitchell; Emma Patterson; Alfons Pomp; Myrlene A Staten; Susan Z Yanovski; Richard Thirlby; Bruce Wolfe Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-07-30 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Luca Busetto; John Dixon; Maurizio De Luca; Scott Shikora; Walter Pories; Luigi Angrisani Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Marc Beisani; Fàtima Sabench Pereferrer; Ramón Vilallonga; Óscar González López; Alicia Molina López; Daniel Del Castillo Dejardin; Amador García Ruiz de Gordejuela; José Manuel Fort López-Barajas; Manel Armengol Carrasco Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2021-01-04 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Meg H Zeller; Sanita Hunsaker; Carmen Mikhail; Jennifer Reiter-Purtill; Mary Beth McCullough; Beth Garland; Heather Austin; Gia Washington; Amy Baughcum; Dana Rofey; Kevin Smith Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2016-10-18 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: Anita P Courcoulas; Nicholas J Christian; Steven H Belle; Paul D Berk; David R Flum; Luis Garcia; Mary Horlick; Melissa A Kalarchian; Wendy C King; James E Mitchell; Emma J Patterson; John R Pender; Alfons Pomp; Walter J Pories; Richard C Thirlby; Susan Z Yanovski; Bruce M Wolfe Journal: JAMA Date: 2013-12-11 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jonathan Q Purnell; Elizabeth N Dewey; Blandine Laferrère; Faith Selzer; David R Flum; James E Mitchell; Alfons Pomp; Walter J Pories; Thomas Inge; Anita Courcoulas; Bruce M Wolfe Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2021-03-08 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Givan F Paulus; Loes E G de Vaan; Froukje J Verdam; Nicole D Bouvy; Ton A W Ambergen; L W Ernest van Heurn Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Young Eun Chon; Hyung Jong Kim; Yu Bum Choi; Seong Gyu Hwang; Kyu Sung Rim; Mi Na Kim; Joo Ho Lee; Yeonjung Ha; Mi Jung Lee Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-06-02 Impact factor: 4.379