The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

What are important outcomes of bariatric surgery? An in-depth analysis to inform the development of a core outcome set and a comparison between the views of surgeons and other health professionals (the BARIACT study)

What are important outcomes of bariatric surgery? An in-depth analysis to inform the development of a core outcome set and a comparison between the views of surgeons and other health professionals (the BARIACT study)
What are important outcomes of bariatric surgery? An in-depth analysis to inform the development of a core outcome set and a comparison between the views of surgeons and other health professionals (the BARIACT study)
Background
Outcome reporting in bariatric surgery needs uniformity. A core outcome set is an agreed minimum set of outcomes reported in all studies of a particular condition, but members of the bariatric multidisciplinary team might value outcomes differently. The aim of this study was to summarise existing outcome reporting in bariatric surgery, to inform the development of a core outcome set, and to compare outcomes selected as important by type of health professional.

Methods
Outcomes reported in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and large non-randomised studies, identified by a systematic review, were listed verbatim. Frequency of outcome reporting and uniformity of definition were assessed. A questionnaire to rate the importance of each outcome was completed by members of the bariatric multidisciplinary team. Responses to each item were scored as 1 (not essential) to 9 (absolutely essential). We ranked outcomes according to percentage deemed important (7–9) and according to respondents by type of health professional.

Findings
We identified 1088 individual outcomes from 90 studies (39 RCTs), grouped them into health domains, and presented them as a questionnaire with 131 items to 489 multidisciplinary team members. Most outcomes (n=920, 85%) were reported only once. The largest outcome domain was surgical complications, and 432 outcomes (42%) corresponded to an adverse event. Only a quarter of outcomes (n=461) were defined, and were often contradictory. For questionnaire responders (n=164, response rate 33·5%), most were surgeons (n=80, 48·8%), followed by dietitians (n=31, 18·9%), nurses (n=24, 14·6%), physicians (n=12, 7·3%), and others (n=16, 9·9%). Improvement in diabetes was the top outcome for all health professionals. Seven of the surgeon's top ten outcomes were adverse events, compared with three for other health professionals. Groups valued a measure of weight differently (third vs 15th for other health professionals and surgeons, respectively).

Interpretation
This study shows that the assessment of bariatric surgery focuses largely on adverse events and resolution of comorbidity, but that reporting is inconsistent and ill-defined. Substantial variation between the views of surgeons and those of other health professionals was evident. The next step is to provide feedback to participants and to survey their views again before a final consensus meeting to produce a core outcome set for the Benefits and Adverse events in BARIAtric surgery Clinical Trials (BARIACT) as a solution to this problem.

Funding
National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), and the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme. This work was also undertaken with the support of the MRC ConDuCT-II Hub (Collaboration and innovation for Difficult and Complex randomised controlled Trials In Invasive procedures, MR/K025643/1).
0140-6736
S43
Hopkins, James
41db34ea-200d-4e7e-a032-80068ab1e4a4
Howes, Noah
7314b57c-9c81-4ab5-8194-c7e47fdf94ce
Chalmers, Katy A.
1976d813-3842-410e-9621-f104cf62efd3
Whale, Katie
560bea51-3169-44db-804f-4fee26c94bec
Savovic, Jelena
c605a503-9ae0-4578-882b-4a072fad1666
Coulman, Karen
b59a07f7-cfd1-43b3-8e52-0e8fd97cdf89
Nicholson, Alex
1399898b-3ad5-42fc-92d6-7dd9db0c25ff
Byrne, James
e3d5b8fe-1b69-441c-a173-e084fe5372a6
Whistance, Robert
3653139e-e6f4-437e-a299-ec01698a8fab
Welbourne, Richard
566303b0-5208-4ecd-b6f8-a79a0a31aa93
Andrews, Robert
73451747-c508-4d7d-86fa-7721454acbd0
Blazeby, Jane M.
689d490e-fca3-4430-88de-f19ec6cebf58
By-Band-Sleeve Trial Management Group
Hopkins, James
41db34ea-200d-4e7e-a032-80068ab1e4a4
Howes, Noah
7314b57c-9c81-4ab5-8194-c7e47fdf94ce
Chalmers, Katy A.
1976d813-3842-410e-9621-f104cf62efd3
Whale, Katie
560bea51-3169-44db-804f-4fee26c94bec
Savovic, Jelena
c605a503-9ae0-4578-882b-4a072fad1666
Coulman, Karen
b59a07f7-cfd1-43b3-8e52-0e8fd97cdf89
Nicholson, Alex
1399898b-3ad5-42fc-92d6-7dd9db0c25ff
Byrne, James
e3d5b8fe-1b69-441c-a173-e084fe5372a6
Whistance, Robert
3653139e-e6f4-437e-a299-ec01698a8fab
Welbourne, Richard
566303b0-5208-4ecd-b6f8-a79a0a31aa93
Andrews, Robert
73451747-c508-4d7d-86fa-7721454acbd0
Blazeby, Jane M.
689d490e-fca3-4430-88de-f19ec6cebf58

Hopkins, James, Howes, Noah, Chalmers, Katy A., Whale, Katie, Savovic, Jelena, Coulman, Karen, Nicholson, Alex, Byrne, James, Whistance, Robert, Welbourne, Richard, Andrews, Robert and Blazeby, Jane M. , By-Band-Sleeve Trial Management Group (2015) What are important outcomes of bariatric surgery? An in-depth analysis to inform the development of a core outcome set and a comparison between the views of surgeons and other health professionals (the BARIACT study). The Lancet, 385 (supplement 1), S43. (doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(15)60358-0).

Record type: Article

Abstract

Background
Outcome reporting in bariatric surgery needs uniformity. A core outcome set is an agreed minimum set of outcomes reported in all studies of a particular condition, but members of the bariatric multidisciplinary team might value outcomes differently. The aim of this study was to summarise existing outcome reporting in bariatric surgery, to inform the development of a core outcome set, and to compare outcomes selected as important by type of health professional.

Methods
Outcomes reported in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and large non-randomised studies, identified by a systematic review, were listed verbatim. Frequency of outcome reporting and uniformity of definition were assessed. A questionnaire to rate the importance of each outcome was completed by members of the bariatric multidisciplinary team. Responses to each item were scored as 1 (not essential) to 9 (absolutely essential). We ranked outcomes according to percentage deemed important (7–9) and according to respondents by type of health professional.

Findings
We identified 1088 individual outcomes from 90 studies (39 RCTs), grouped them into health domains, and presented them as a questionnaire with 131 items to 489 multidisciplinary team members. Most outcomes (n=920, 85%) were reported only once. The largest outcome domain was surgical complications, and 432 outcomes (42%) corresponded to an adverse event. Only a quarter of outcomes (n=461) were defined, and were often contradictory. For questionnaire responders (n=164, response rate 33·5%), most were surgeons (n=80, 48·8%), followed by dietitians (n=31, 18·9%), nurses (n=24, 14·6%), physicians (n=12, 7·3%), and others (n=16, 9·9%). Improvement in diabetes was the top outcome for all health professionals. Seven of the surgeon's top ten outcomes were adverse events, compared with three for other health professionals. Groups valued a measure of weight differently (third vs 15th for other health professionals and surgeons, respectively).

Interpretation
This study shows that the assessment of bariatric surgery focuses largely on adverse events and resolution of comorbidity, but that reporting is inconsistent and ill-defined. Substantial variation between the views of surgeons and those of other health professionals was evident. The next step is to provide feedback to participants and to survey their views again before a final consensus meeting to produce a core outcome set for the Benefits and Adverse events in BARIAtric surgery Clinical Trials (BARIACT) as a solution to this problem.

Funding
National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), and the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme. This work was also undertaken with the support of the MRC ConDuCT-II Hub (Collaboration and innovation for Difficult and Complex randomised controlled Trials In Invasive procedures, MR/K025643/1).

This record has no associated files available for download.

More information

Published date: 26 February 2015

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 477846
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/477846
ISSN: 0140-6736
PURE UUID: e484bdf6-a05a-42bf-9ce1-59f80527d6ff

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 15 Jun 2023 16:50
Last modified: 17 Mar 2024 00:13

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: James Hopkins
Author: Noah Howes
Author: Katy A. Chalmers
Author: Katie Whale
Author: Jelena Savovic
Author: Karen Coulman
Author: Alex Nicholson
Author: James Byrne
Author: Robert Whistance
Author: Richard Welbourne
Author: Robert Andrews
Author: Jane M. Blazeby
Corporate Author: By-Band-Sleeve Trial Management Group

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×