ReviewPloS one2025
GLP-1 receptor agonist for weight loss and fertility: Social media and online perception versus evidence-based medicine.
Review in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A Systematic Review on GLP-1 Receptor Agonists in Reproductive Health: Integrating IVF Data, Ovarian Physiology and Molecular Mechanisms.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Pooled it
- Psychiatric Adverse Events and Administration Challenges Associated with GLP-1 Receptor Agonists for Weight Loss: A Real-World Analysis.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Considering Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists (GLP-1RAs) for Weight Loss: Insights from a Pragmatic Mixed-Methods Study of Patient Beliefs and Barriers.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Balancing metabolic optimization and reproductive safety in Polycystic Ovary Syndrome: a Bayesian-informed framework for GLP-1 receptor agonists.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe injectable glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist (RA) drugs are commonly used for weight loss among reproductive-aged women but the perception of their impact on fertility is not clear among the public.
objectivesThe purpose of this review was to compare scientific literature to social media discourse and online search pertaining to the potential impact of GLP-1 RAs on female fertility.
methodsGroup 1 included 3 social media platforms, each of which required a different data collection method. For Reddit, VADER (Communalytic ®) was used as a sentiment analyzer and for Twitter and TikTok, we performed a manual search for posts and scored them using an objective internal scale. Group 2 included the online search engine Google Trends. Group 3 consisted of medical literature search by PubMed. All sentiments of posts/comments/articles were graded as: "Positive, Neutral, or Negative" and compared among groups.
resultsIn Groups 1 and 2, scores showed a significantly more Positive than Neutral, and more Neutral than Negative sentiments. In Group 3, among the 52 original studies found on PubMed in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), they all had Positive sentiments. In Groups 1, 2, and 3, there was a strong positive correlation among all sentiments (r2 = 0.83). Even though all 3 social media platforms had the majority of posts with a Positive sentiment and correlated with Google Trends posts and with PubMed studies in women with PCOS (r2 = 0.74), there was a lack of PubMed studies pertaining to the effect of GLP-1 RA in women without PCOS.
conclusionThe Positive sentiments among women without PCOS is not justified by evidence-based medicine and there is a clear need for studies pertaining to this topic.
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.