↓ Skip to main content

Multicenter study on the safety of bariatric endoscopy.

Overview of attention for article published in Revista Española de Enfermedades Digestivas, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#34 of 891)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Multicenter study on the safety of bariatric endoscopy.
Published in
Revista Española de Enfermedades Digestivas, January 2017
DOI 10.17235/reed.2017.4499/2016
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eduardo Espinet Coll, Javier Nebreda Durán, Gontrand López-Nava Breviere, Julio Ducóns García, Manuel Rodríguez-Téllez, Javier Crespo García, Carlos Marra-López Valenciano

Abstract

Bariatric endoscopy includes a series of specific techniques focused on the management of obese patients. As a quality criterion, safety as expressed by a minimal incidence of serious complications is required in addition to efficacy. A descriptive, retrospective, multicenter review of the experience recorded at seven hospitals included in the Grupo Español de Endoscopia Bariátrica (GETTEMO) in order to document the incidence, cause, and resolution (including legal consequences) of serious complications reported for each bariatric technique, and according to endoscopist expertise. In all, 6,771 bariatric endoscopic procedures were collected, wherein 57 serious complications (0.84%) were identified. Balloons: Orbera®-Medsil®, 5/5,589; Spatz2® (older model): 44/225; Heliosphere®: 1/70; Obalon®: 0/107. Sutures: POSE®, 5/679; sleeve gastroplasty with Apollo® system: 0/55. Prostheses: Endobarrier®: 2/46. All complications were resolved with medical/endoscopic management except for five cases (0.07%) that required surgery. A single lawsuit occurred (esophageal perforation with Spatz2® balloon), which had a favorable outcome. There was no mortality, and apparently no differences were found according to endoscopist expertise level. In our multicenter experience, bariatric endoscopy may be considered as a safe procedure (0.84% of serious complications in all). However, some devices may induce a higher proportion of complications, such as 19.55% for Spatz2® balloons (already replaced) or 4.34% for Endobarrier® sleeves (at the upper limit of accepted safety), although our experience with the latter is limited. All complications were resolved with conservative medical management, and only exceptionally required surgery (0.07%). No technique-related mortality was seen, and only one lawsuit occurred. Further evolutionary studies are required on the novel endoscopic techniques presently emerging to authenticate our results.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 13%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Other 4 8%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 10 21%
Unknown 16 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Unspecified 1 2%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 19 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 09 August 2017.
All research outputs
#3,344,321
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Revista Española de Enfermedades Digestivas
#34
of 891 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,127
of 421,709 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Revista Española de Enfermedades Digestivas
#5
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 891 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. 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 421,709 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 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 90% of its contemporaries.