Guidelines fall short on bariatric surgery

John B Dixon
Med J Aust 2014; 200 (8): . || doi: 10.5694/mja14.00294
Published online: 19 May 2014

In reply: I appreciate the opportunity to respond to McCallum's defence of the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) guideline development process, and appreciate the revisions that were made to the current version. With my general practice background, I understand that the 656-page systematic review will not be considered in clinical practice, but I do know that the text within the guidelines will. And unfortunately that text did not reflect either the established literature or the systematic review. I found the text regarding bariatric surgery flawed throughout, with issues not restricted to nutritional support. There were multiple statements with no evidence base, which of course means they could not be referenced, and two statements where cited references did not support the statement made.

  • Vascular and Hypertension — Obesity Research, Baker IDI Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, VIC.


Competing interests:

I have received research funding from the NHMRC, including through an NHMRC Senior Research Fellowship. I act as a consultant for Bariatric Advantage, iNova Pharmaceuticals and Nestec Ltd, and have previously consulted for Allergan, Inc. I am on the advisory board for Nestlé Health Science.


remove_circle_outline Delete Author
add_circle_outline Add Author

Do you have any competing interests to declare? *

I/we agree to assign copyright to the Medical Journal of Australia and agree to the Conditions of publication *
I/we agree to the Terms of use of the Medical Journal of Australia *
Email me when people comment on this article

Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.