In the summer break, I review two research articles on the topic, “Bariatric surgery versus non-surgical treatment for obesity.” The main objective of this review is to compare two articles on the same topic and analyze their statistical results to understand which method of treatment is more effective.
Both articles have different kind study design. The BMJ article (article 1) study design is systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomized control trial, where New England Journal of Medicine article (article 2) study design is observation study based on randomized, non-blinded, single-center trial.
Article 1 included 11 studies with the population of 796 with the mean BMI of an individual at baseline 30-52. All this studies were …show more content…
According to the risk of bias assessment tool, some of the studies among eleven studies were not blinded and publication bias was assessed descriptively for the outcome of body weight loss. In the study trail obese patient with multiple or severe comorbidities were excluded (exclusion bias) so this may not representative all the population intended to be analyzed. Furthermore, the methodological quality of five studies suffered from unclear allocation concealment and was at high risk for attrition bias. In article 2 author did not mention any bias but specified the limitation of the study which include the relatively short duration of follow-up, single-center, the non-blinded and open-label nature of the study. Since, the study was non-blinded the outcome of the trail carries a high risk for observer …show more content…
Standard deviation was derived from other statistics such as P-value or confidence interval. In article 2, continuous variable with a normal distribution was reported as a mean standard deviation. Variables with non-normal distribution were reported as medians and interquartile ranges. Categorical variables were summarized with the use of frequencies. The chi-square test was used to analyze the primary end point and used analysis of variance to analyze continuous laboratory measurements and compare study
Both articles have different kind study design. The BMJ article (article 1) study design is systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomized control trial, where New England Journal of Medicine article (article 2) study design is observation study based on randomized, non-blinded, single-center trial.
Article 1 included 11 studies with the population of 796 with the mean BMI of an individual at baseline 30-52. All this studies were …show more content…
According to the risk of bias assessment tool, some of the studies among eleven studies were not blinded and publication bias was assessed descriptively for the outcome of body weight loss. In the study trail obese patient with multiple or severe comorbidities were excluded (exclusion bias) so this may not representative all the population intended to be analyzed. Furthermore, the methodological quality of five studies suffered from unclear allocation concealment and was at high risk for attrition bias. In article 2 author did not mention any bias but specified the limitation of the study which include the relatively short duration of follow-up, single-center, the non-blinded and open-label nature of the study. Since, the study was non-blinded the outcome of the trail carries a high risk for observer …show more content…
Standard deviation was derived from other statistics such as P-value or confidence interval. In article 2, continuous variable with a normal distribution was reported as a mean standard deviation. Variables with non-normal distribution were reported as medians and interquartile ranges. Categorical variables were summarized with the use of frequencies. The chi-square test was used to analyze the primary end point and used analysis of variance to analyze continuous laboratory measurements and compare study