David D Kim1, David E Arterburn2, Sean D Sullivan3, Anirban Basu3,4. 1. Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, 800 Washington St. Box 63, Boston, MA, 02111, USA. dkim3@tuftsmedicalcenter.org. 2. Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA. 3. Pharmaceutical Outcomes Research and Policy Program, Department of Pharmacy, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 4. Department of Health Services and Economics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess whether publication of clinical evidence was associated with increased utilization of bariatric surgery. METHODS: We systematically searched the literature (1994 to 2008) to identify studies on bariatric surgery. We sorted the evidence by publication date and citation frequency. We linked the published evidence to data from the Kaiser Permanente Washington (KPWA) on 1421 bariatric surgery cases and 45,665 medically managed patients with severe obesity to assess the association between evidence and use of bariatric surgery. We used an interrupted time series analysis with a control group to estimate the association. In secondary analyses, we examined the association with accumulating major clinical evidence, the type of evidence, and stratification by influential tiers. RESULTS: A total of 9913 papers were identified and the top 100 cited papers were initially selected. After inclusion criteria were applied, 35 papers were selected. We selected the fourth quarter in 2004 as the exposure based on publication for the two studies with the largest number of citations. Compared to the projected secular trend, the publication of those two major articles was associated with 50 additional cases of bariatric surgery performed per 100,000 eligible individuals per quarter. In our secondary analyses, higher quality evidence (e.g., RCTs) and more highly cited evidence were each associated with a greater probability of receiving bariatric surgery. CONCLUSIONS: For patient members of the KPWA with severe obesity, publication of clinical evidence was associated with increased use of bariatric surgery. This finding suggests that publication of higher quality positive clinical evidence may influence utilization.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess whether publication of clinical evidence was associated with increased utilization of bariatric surgery. METHODS: We systematically searched the literature (1994 to 2008) to identify studies on bariatric surgery. We sorted the evidence by publication date and citation frequency. We linked the published evidence to data from the Kaiser Permanente Washington (KPWA) on 1421 bariatric surgery cases and 45,665 medically managed patients with severe obesity to assess the association between evidence and use of bariatric surgery. We used an interrupted time series analysis with a control group to estimate the association. In secondary analyses, we examined the association with accumulating major clinical evidence, the type of evidence, and stratification by influential tiers. RESULTS: A total of 9913 papers were identified and the top 100 cited papers were initially selected. After inclusion criteria were applied, 35 papers were selected. We selected the fourth quarter in 2004 as the exposure based on publication for the two studies with the largest number of citations. Compared to the projected secular trend, the publication of those two major articles was associated with 50 additional cases of bariatric surgery performed per 100,000 eligible individuals per quarter. In our secondary analyses, higher quality evidence (e.g., RCTs) and more highly cited evidence were each associated with a greater probability of receiving bariatric surgery. CONCLUSIONS: For patient members of the KPWA with severe obesity, publication of clinical evidence was associated with increased use of bariatric surgery. This finding suggests that publication of higher quality positive clinical evidence may influence utilization.
Authors: Lars Sjöström; Anna-Karin Lindroos; Markku Peltonen; Jarl Torgerson; Claude Bouchard; Björn Carlsson; Sven Dahlgren; Bo Larsson; Kristina Narbro; Carl David Sjöström; Marianne Sullivan; Hans Wedel Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-12-23 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Matthew L Maciejewski; Edward H Livingston; Valerie A Smith; Andrew L Kavee; Leila C Kahwati; William G Henderson; David E Arterburn Journal: JAMA Date: 2011-06-12 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Melinda A Maggard; Lisa R Shugarman; Marika Suttorp; Margaret Maglione; Harvey J Sugerman; Harvey J Sugarman; Edward H Livingston; Ninh T Nguyen; Zhaoping Li; Walter A Mojica; Lara Hilton; Shannon Rhodes; Sally C Morton; Paul G Shekelle Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2005-04-05 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: David E Arterburn; Andy Bogart; Nancy E Sherwood; Stephen Sidney; Karen J Coleman; Sebastien Haneuse; Patrick J O'Connor; Mary Kay Theis; Guilherme M Campos; David McCulloch; Joe Selby Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: J Picot; J Jones; J L Colquitt; E Gospodarevskaya; E Loveman; L Baxter; A J Clegg Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Viktoria L Gloy; Matthias Briel; Deepak L Bhatt; Sangeeta R Kashyap; Philip R Schauer; Geltrude Mingrone; Heiner C Bucher; Alain J Nordmann Journal: BMJ Date: 2013-10-22