Journals Library

An error occurred retrieving content to display, please try again.

Page not found (404)

Sorry - the page you requested could not be found.

Please choose a page from the navigation or try a website search above to find the information you need.

This trial found that the endoluminal duodenal jejunal bypass liner was not superior to intensive medical therapy for glycaemic control and it was associated with more adverse events.

{{author}}{{author}}{{($index < metadata.AuthorsAndEtalArray.length-1) ? ',' : '.'}}

Aruchuna Ruban 1,*, Michael A Glaysher 2, Alexander D Miras 3, Anthony P Goldstone 4, Christina G Prechtl 5, Nicholas Johnson 5, Jia Li 1, Madhawi Aldhwayan 3, Ghadah Aldubaikhi 4, Ben Glover 1, Joanne Lord 6, Olu Onyimadu 6, Emmanuela Falaschetti 5, Natalia Klimowska-Nassar 5, Hutan Ashrafian 1, James Byrne 7, Julian P Teare 1

1 Department of Surgery and Cancer, St Mary’s Hospital, Imperial College London, London, UK
2 National Institute for Health Research Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, Southampton Centre for Biomedical Research, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, UK
3 Section of Investigative Medicine, Division of Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Medicine, Hammersmith Hospital, Imperial College London, London, UK
4 PsychoNeuroEndocrinology Research Group, Neuropsychopharmacology Unit, Centre for Psychiatry and Computational, Cognitive and Clinical Neuroimaging Laboratory, Division of Brain Sciences, Imperial College London, London, UK
5 Department of Public Health, Imperial Clinical Trials Unit, Imperial College London, London, UK
6 University of Southampton, Southampton Health Technology Assessments Centre, University of Southampton Science Park, Southampton, UK
7 Division of Surgery, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
* Corresponding author Email:

Funding: {{metadata.Funding}}

{{metadata.Journal}} Volume: {{metadata.Volume}}, Issue: {{metadata.Issue}}, Published in {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'MMMM yyyy'}}{{metadata.DOI}}

Citation: {{author}}{{ (($index < metadata.AuthorsArray.length-1) && ($index <=6)) ? ', ' : '' }}{{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length <= 6) ? '.' : '' }} {{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length > 6) ? 'et al.' : ''}} . {{metadata.JournalShortName}} {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'yyyy'}};{{metadata.Volume}}({{metadata.Issue}})

Crossmark status check

Report Content

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

If you would like to receive a notification when this project publishes in the NIHR Journals Library, please submit your email address below.


Responses to this report

No responses have been published.


If you would like to submit a response to this publication, please do so using the form below:

Comments submitted to the NIHR Journals Library are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our readers to debate issues raised in research reports published in the Journals Library. We aim to post within 14 working days all responses that contribute substantially to the topic investigated, as determined by the Editors.  Non-relevant comments will be deleted.

Your name and affiliations will be published with your comment.

Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. The Editors may add, remove, or edit comments at their absolute discretion.

By submitting your response, you are stating that you agree to the terms & conditions