↓ Skip to main content

Intragastric Balloon Treatment for Obesity: Review of Recent Studies

Overview of attention for article published in Advances in Therapy, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
8 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
85 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
131 Mendeley
Title
Intragastric Balloon Treatment for Obesity: Review of Recent Studies
Published in
Advances in Therapy, July 2017
DOI 10.1007/s12325-017-0562-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chinara M. Tate, Allan Geliebter

Abstract

The FDA recently approved three intragastric balloon (IGB) devices, ReShape, ORBERA™, and Obalon for treatment of obesity. Given the high cost, complication risk, and invasiveness of bariatric surgery, IGB treatment may present a safer and lower cost option for weight reduction. IGBs are generally placed in the stomach endoscopically for up to 6 months to reduce gastric capacity, enhance feelings of fullness, and induce weight loss. The mechanism of action likely involves stimulation of gastric mechanoreceptors triggering short-acting vagal signals to brain regions implicated in satiety. Balloon efficacy may be influenced by balloon volume, patient gastric capacity, and treatment duration. This review focused on eight recent (2006-present) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing percentage total body weight loss (%TBWL) between IGB and control groups including three reviewed by the FDA. %TBWL based on the reviewed studies was also compared with bariatric surgery and pharmacotherapy. Of the eight IGB studies, five had balloon treatment duration of 6 months. Efficacy at 6 months, based on a pooled weighted-mean %TBWL, was 9.7%, and the control-subtracted %TBWL was 5.6%. When one study without SDs was removed, the weighted mean %TBWL was 9.3 ± 5.7% SD, and control-subtracted %TBWL was 5.5 ± 7.8%, which was statistically greater than controls. IGB showed lower efficacy than bariatric surgery (median weight loss of 27% for Rouen-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). The control-subtracted %TBWL over 6 months of 5.5-5.6% is less than the most efficacious FDA-approved weight loss drug, Qsymia. At the recommended dose, Qsymia has a placebo-subtracted %TBWL at 6 months of approximately 6.6%. The weighted mean reported incidence of serious adverse events (SAEs) in the IGB group across all eight studies was 10.5%. Only six of the eight reviewed studies reported adverse events (AEs) in the IGB group, with a pooled reported incidence of 28.2%. Recently, the FDA reported new AEs including acute pancreatitis with ReShape and ORBERA™. Based on the available evidence, it is unlikely that IGB use will supplant other forms of obesity treatment. The estimated cost of endoscopic balloon implantation and retrieval is US $8,150. Collectively, a relatively small control-subtracted %TBWL and the potential for serious complications makes IGB unlikely to become widely adopted. Given the recent FDA warning, IGB longevity on the market is questionable.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 131 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 131 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 22 17%
Researcher 16 12%
Student > Master 16 12%
Other 9 7%
Student > Postgraduate 9 7%
Other 21 16%
Unknown 38 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 5%
Engineering 5 4%
Other 22 17%
Unknown 41 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 December 2022.
All research outputs
#1,439,729
of 23,400,864 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Therapy
#113
of 2,401 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,912
of 313,259 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Therapy
#3
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,400,864 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,401 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 313,259 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.