↓ Skip to main content

Endoscopic Sleeve Gastroplasty, Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy, and Laparoscopic Band for Weight Loss: How Do They Compare?

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
92 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 Mendeley
Title
Endoscopic Sleeve Gastroplasty, Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy, and Laparoscopic Band for Weight Loss: How Do They Compare?
Published in
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery, November 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11605-017-3615-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aleksey A Novikov, Cheguevara Afaneh, Monica Saumoy, Viviana Parra, Alpana Shukla, Gregory F Dakin, Alfons Pomp, Enad Dawod, Shawn Shah, Louis J Aronne, Reem Z Sharaiha

Abstract

Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) is a novel endobariatric procedure. Initial studies demonstrated an association of ESG with weight loss and improvement of obesity-related comorbidities. Our aim was to compare ESG to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) and laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB). We included 278 obese (BMI > 30) patients who underwent ESG (n = 91), LSG (n = 120), or LAGB (n = 67) at our tertiary care academic center. Primary outcome was percent total body weight loss (%TBWL) at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. Secondary outcome measures included adverse events (AE), length of stay (LOS), and readmission rate. At 12-month follow-up, LSG achieved the greatest %TBWL compared to LAGB and ESG (29.28 vs 13.30 vs 17.57%, respectively; p < 0.001). However, ESG had a significantly lower rate of morbidity when compared to LSG or LAGB (p = 0.01). The LOS was significantly less for ESG compared to LSG or LAGB (0.34 ± 0.73 vs 3.09 ± 1.47 vs 1.66 ± 3.07 days, respectively; p < 0.01). Readmission rates were not significantly different between the groups (p = 0.72). Although LSG is the most effective option for weight loss, ESG is a safe and feasible endobariatric option associated with low morbidity and short LOS in select patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 88 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 15%
Student > Bachelor 11 13%
Student > Postgraduate 9 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 15 17%
Unknown 29 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 41%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Engineering 2 2%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 34 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 22 August 2022.
All research outputs
#4,687,422
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery
#281
of 2,489 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,802
of 342,451 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery
#12
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,489 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 342,451 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.