Systematic review and meta-analysis of perioperative behavioral lifestyle and nutritional interventions in bariatric surgery: a call for better research and reporting.

Bariatric surgery is considered the most effective treatment for people with morbid obesity, and certain interventions could enhance its long-term results. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, CENTRAL, and trial registers up to January 1, 2020. Randomized controlled trials, where behavioral lifestyle or nutritional interventions were provided perioperatively were included. Primary outcome was weight change. Two reviewers independently performed each stage of the review. Altogether 6652 references were screened. 31 studies were included for qualitative synthesis and 22 studies for quantitative synthesis. Interventions varied greatly, thus limiting possibility of synthesizing all results. Six groups of interventions were discerned, and we used standardized mean differences for synthesis. Low to very-low certainty evidence suggests that physical activity, nonvitamin nutritional interventions, vitamins, psychotherapy, and counseling but not combined interventions might bring some benefit regarding short-term postsurgery follow-ups (up to 12 mo), but the estimates varied and results were not statistically significant, except for 12 months follow-ups regarding counseling. Psychotherapy and counseling, but not vitamins and combined interventions, may provide some benefit at longer follow-ups (over 12 mo), but the certainty of evidence was low to very-low and statistically significant results were observed in comparisons including data from single studies with small sample sizes only. Included studies expressed an outcome "weight change" using 20 different measures. Misreporting of data and huge variety of outcomes do not benefit systematic analyses and may possibly lead to confusion of both researchers and readers. We suggest that authors follow a predefined set of outcomes when reporting the results of their studies. The initiative to produce "core outcome set" for clinical trials in bariatric surgery trials is currently underway.

Efficacy of probiotics in patients with morbid obesity undergoing bariatric surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Bariatric surgery is considered effective for morbid obesity, and probiotic supplementation might provide some benefits. We aimed to revise the evidence regarding probiotic supplementation in patients with morbid obesity undergoing bariatric surgery. MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, CENTRAL, and trial registers were searched up to April 1, 2020. We included randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials, and outcomes of interest were weight change, quality of life, gastrointestinal symptoms, and adverse events. All stages of the review were done by 2 authors independently and we followed Cochrane Handbook guidance. We screened 2541 references and included 5 studies. Probiotics may have minor to no effect regarding percentage excess weight loss (%EWL) at 6 weeks (mean difference [MD], .28; 95% CI, -9.53 to 10.09; 44 participants, 2 studies), 3 months (MD, 5.47; 95% CI, -3.22 to 14.17; 165 participants, 3 studies), 6 months (MD, .46; 95% CI, -8.14 to 9.07; 115 participants, 2 studies), and 12 months post surgery (MD, .35; 95% CI, -8.66 to 9.37; 123 participants, 2 studies). We observed short-term improvement in gastrointestinal symptoms. There was no important effect on quality of life and no meaningful adverse events. Because probiotic supplementation might provide some benefit with respect to weight loss, might alleviate some gastrointestinal symptoms, and is associated with minor or no adverse events, continuous supplementation might be worth considering in certain individuals. Our findings are based on the body of evidence of very low certainty, and further well-designed randomized controlled trials are required to elucidate the effect and strengthen the certainty in the estimates.

Mortality in patients after acute myocardial infarction managed by cardiologists and primary care physicians: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Mortality following acute myocardial infarction (AMI) remains high despite of progress in invasive and noninvasive treatments. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare the outcomes of ambulatory treatment provided by cardiologists versus general practitioners (GPs) in post­AMI patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic search in 3 electronic databases for interventional and observational studies that reported all­cause mortality, mortality from cardiovascular causes, stroke, and myocardial infarction at long­term follow­up following AMI. We assessed the risk of bias of the included studies using the Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS­I) tool. For randomized trials, we used the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB 2.0). RESULTS: Two nonrandomized studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. We assessed these studies as having a moderate risk of bias. We did not pool the results owing to significant heterogeneity between the studies. Patients consulted by both a cardiologist and a GP were at lower risk of all­cause death as compared with patients consulted by a cardiologist only (risk ratio [RR], 0.92; 95% CI, 0.85-0.99). Patients consulted by a cardiologist with or without GP consultation were at lower risk of all­cause death compared with those consulted by a GP only in both studies (RR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.75-0.85 and RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.41-0.47). CONCLUSIONS: Patients after AMI consulted by both a cardiologist and a GP may be at lower risk of death compared with patients consulted by a GP or a cardiologist only. However, these findings are based on moderate­quality nonrandomized studies. We found no evidence on the relation between the specialization of the physician and the risk of cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction in AMI survivors.

The quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses published in the field of bariatrics: A cross-sectional systematic survey using AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS.

High-quality systematic reviews (SR) and meta-analyses (MA) are considered to be reliable sources of information. This study aims to assess the quality of studies published as SR or MA in the field of bariatrics in 2016 and 2017. We identified SR and MA in the field of bariatrics by searching electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews). Eligible studies were those identified as SR/MA in the title/abstract, which aimed to assess any outcome in patients with morbid obesity undergoing or scheduled to undergo bariatric surgery. Two authors independently reviewed all titles and abstracts, assessed full texts of potentially eligible studies, and assessed the quality of included studies. Any discrepancies were resolved by the third reviewer. We evaluated the quality and risk of bias of each SR/MA using AMSTAR 2 checklist and ROBIS tool, respectively. Seventy-eight of 4236 references met inclusion criteria and were assessed for their quality/risk of bias. The methodological quality of 99% of all papers was classified as "critically low." A total of 6% of the studies were at low risk of bias, and 78% were assessed as being at high risk of bias. The methodological quality of studies published in 2016 and 2017 as SR/MA is highly unsatisfactory.