ReviewJournal of diabetes2026

Who Wins the Battle Against Obesity? A Network Meta-Analysis Comparing Tirzepatide and Semaglutide.

Julia C Bernardi, Deivyd V S Cavalcante, Ramon Huntermann, Maria E Molinari, Luana Z Zanon, Jacinthe Khater, Victor A Gomez, Caroline O Fischer-Bacca

Abstract readNetwork Meta-AnalysisComparative StudyReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of diabetes, 2026. The graph read 1 number from its abstract, feeding 2 cells of the map: it favours the comparator in 2. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

1number the graph read from it
2cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

← favours the treatmentfavours the comparator →
8.570 · no effect
Body weight & compositionfavours the comparator · against placebo · obesityfeeds 2 cells of the map
Δ 6.103.64 to 8.57
Tirzepatide demonstrated superiority over semaglutide in percentage weight reduction (mean difference [MD] 6.10%; 95% CI: 3.64, 8.57), absolute weight loss (MD 4.55 kg; 95% CI: 1.28, 7.83), BMI reduction (MD 1.71 kg/m CONCLUSION: In this NMA, tirzepatide appeared to be superior to semaglutide in both body weight reduction and improvement of glycemic indices.

clause the extractor read what became the number

2 · Its place on the map

Where it lands on the map

Rows are treatments, columns are outcomes. The coloured squares are the cells this paper feeds, coloured by the vote it casts there. Click one to jump to what this paper adds to it.

supports the treatmentfavours the comparatorno clear differenceread, but no usable result
3 · What it changes

What it adds to each cell

For every cell the paper feeds: the belief in the claim with and without this paper, and this paper's estimate drawn against every other readable study in the cell. The ringed dot is this paper.

GIP/GLP-1 & amylin agonists×body weight & composition

ContradictsOpen on the map →What to test next →

28 readable studies in this cell: 27 favour the treatment, 1 find no difference, 0 favour the comparator.

Belief with this paper
1.00replicated · 19 families support, 0 contradict · against placebo
Without itNot a counted family in this claim, so removing it changes nothing.
← favours the treatmentfavours the comparator →
0 · no effect
Δ -17.3-18.1 to -16.6
NCT041846222,539 enrolled · 2019
Δ -13.5-14.6 to -12.5
NCT037306622,002 enrolled · 2018
Δ -9.00-9.80 to -8.30
NCT039879191,879 enrolled · 2019
Δ -1.70-2.60 to -0.70
NCT038829701,444 enrolled · 2019
Δ -9.80-10.8 to -8.80
NCT045379231,428 enrolled · 2020
Δ -10.7-11.5 to -9.90
Δ -10.4-11.2 to -9.50
NCT04657003938 enrolled · 2021
Δ -10.1-11.5 to -8.80
NCT04093752917 enrolled · 2019
Δ -6.50-7.40 to -5.60
NCT04660643783 enrolled · 2021
Δ -21.4-22.9 to -20.0
NCT05822830751 enrolled · 2023
Δ -6.50-8.10 to -4.90
NCT04847557731 enrolled · 2021
Δ -11.6-12.8 to -10.4

This paper's own estimate is on a different scale from the rest of the cell, so it is not drawn here.

GLP-1 receptor agonists×body weight & composition

ContradictsOpen on the map →What to test next →

40 readable studies in this cell: 74 favour the treatment, 15 find no difference, 10 favour the comparator.

Belief with this paper
0.91replicated · 59 families support, 6 contradict · against placebo
Without itNot a counted family in this claim, so removing it changes nothing.
← favours the treatmentfavours the comparator →
0 · no effect
NCT012722193,731 enrolled · 2011
Δ -5.39-5.82 to -4.95
Δ -17.3-18.1 to -16.6
NCT017204463,297 enrolled · 2013
Δ -2.95-3.47 to -2.44
NCT035489351,961 enrolled · 2018
Δ -12.4-13.4 to -11.5
NCT039879191,879 enrolled · 2019
Δ -1.70-2.60 to -0.70
NCT026078651,864 enrolled · 2016
Δ -2.50-3.00 to -2.00
NCT056467061,407 enrolled · 2023
Δ -14.8-16.2 to -13.4
NCT018365231,398 enrolled · 2013
Δ -4.90-5.65 to -4.16
NCT035527571,210 enrolled · 2018
Δ -6.21-7.28 to -5.15
NCT007344741,202 enrolled · 2008
Δ -1.50-2.08 to -0.92
Δ -10.4-11.2 to -9.50
NCT020581471,170 enrolled · 2014
Δ 14.38.37 to 20.3

This paper's own estimate is on a different scale from the rest of the cell, so it is not drawn here.

4 · The registry

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.

5 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
6 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

7 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Julia C BernardiUniversity Center for the Development of Alto Vale, Rio do Sul, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-5565-9406
Deivyd V S CavalcanteUniversity of North Texas Health Science Center, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0329-2219
Ramon HuntermannUniversity Center for the Development of Alto Vale, Rio do Sul, Brazil.
Maria E MolinariUniversity Center for the Development of Alto Vale, Rio do Sul, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-6827-9404
Luana Z ZanonUniversity Center for the Development of Alto Vale, Rio do Sul, Brazil.
Jacinthe KhaterFaculty of Medical Sciences, Lebanese University, Hadath, Lebanon.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-5527-1355
Victor A GomezUniversidad de Iberoamérica (UNIBE), San Jose, Costa Rica.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-6394-5371
Caroline O Fischer-BaccaUniversity Center for the Development of Alto Vale, Rio do Sul, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

8 · The paper itself

Abstract

The marked sentences are the ones the graph read a number from.

introductionPharmacological therapies are recommended for individuals with obesity. Semaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1), and tirzepatide, a dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and GLP-1 receptor agonist (GIP/GLP-1), are among the leading pharmacological options for obesity treatment. This network meta-analysis (NMA) aims to evaluate the comparative efficacy of these two agents in reducing body weight and improving glycemic parameters.

methodsPairwise comparisons within the NMA were conducted using a frequentist approach in RCTs comparing tirzepatide or semaglutide versus placebo, as well as tirzepatide versus semaglutide at their maximum dosages (15 and 2.4 mg, respectively).

resultsA total of 28 RCTs were included, comprising 34 367 participants, 39.6% of whom were women and with a mean age of 57.8 ± 8.95 years. Tirzepatide demonstrated superiority over semaglutide in percentage weight reduction (mean difference [MD] 6.10%; 95% CI: 3.64, 8.57), absolute weight loss (MD 4.55 kg; 95% CI: 1.28, 7.83), BMI reduction (MD 1.71 kg/m

conclusionIn this NMA, tirzepatide appeared to be superior to semaglutide in both body weight reduction and improvement of glycemic indices.

Indexed as

Glucagon-Like PeptidesObesityBlood GlucoseFemaleHumansMiddle AgedRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSemaglutideTirzepatideWeight LossBlood GlucoseGlucagon-Like PeptidesSemaglutideTirzepatideobese patientsreduction of body weightsemaglutidetirzepatide

Identifiers

PMID41664890
PMCPMC12887578

What Socratic holds

Texttitle and abstract
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.