SynthesisNutrients2023
Medicines for Obesity: Appraisal of Clinical Studies with Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Tool.
Synthesis in Nutrients, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Analysis of factors that increase serum progesterone levels on the day of hCG administration in gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist cycles.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
- Lipid-based nano-carriers for the delivery of anti-obesity natural compounds: advances in targeted delivery and precision therapeutics.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2025Review
- Cardiovascular Profile and Cardiovascular Imaging After Bariatric Surgery: A Narrative Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
- Analysis of inequities between demographic and social determinants associated with overweight and obesity.Revista brasileira de epidemiologia = Brazilian journal of epidemiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We evaluated the quality of evidence from phase III/IV clinical trials of drugs against obesity using the principles of Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. Our systematic review evaluates the quality of clinical evidence from existing clinical trials and not the pharmacological efficacy of anti-obesity therapies. A literature search using select keywords in separate was performed in PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov databases for phase III/IV clinical trials during the last ten years. Our findings indicate that the quality of existing clinical evidence from anti-obesity trials generally ranges from low to moderate. Most trials suffered from publication bias. Less frequently, trials suffered from the risk of bias mainly due to lack of blindness in the treatment. Our work indicates that additional higher-quality clinical trials are needed to gain more confidence in the estimate of the effect of currently used anti-obesity medicines, to allow more informed clinical decisions, thus reducing the risk of implementing potentially ineffective or even harmful therapeutic strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.