SynthesisInternational journal of molecular sciences2026
Gastric Neoplasm Risk with DPP-4 Inhibitors, GLP-1 Receptor Agonists, and SGLT2 Inhibitors: Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.
Synthesis in International journal of molecular sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Whether the risk of gastric neoplasm is modified by newer glucose-lowering therapies-dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4is), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1RAs), and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is)-remains uncertain. Given their global uptake and long-term use in populations already predisposed to malignancy, decision-grade comparative safety evidence is needed. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in adults without baseline gastric neoplasms. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, ClinicalKey, ProQuest, and ScienceDirect were searched from inception to 10 January 2026, without language restrictions. The primary outcome was incident gastric neoplasms (benign or malignant). Random-effects frequentist NMA estimated risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs); Bayesian NMA served as sensitivity analysis. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE adapted for NMA (PROSPERO CRD420261282728). Fifty-two RCTs (171,165 participants; mean age 63.6 years; 36.9% women; mean follow-up 141.8 weeks) were included. At the class level, GLP1RAs were associated with lower gastric neoplasm risk versus controls (RR = 0.51, 95% CI = 0.28-0.92), whereas DPP4is were associated with higher risk (RR = 1.77, 95% CI = 1.09-2.85). These signals persisted in prespecified subgroup analyses among participants with diabetes mellitus, in trials with duration ≥52 weeks (GLP1RA: RR = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.28-0.95; DPP4i: RR = 2.05, 95% CI = 1.19-3.55), and in older populations (age ≥60 years; DPP4i: RR = 2.08, 95% CI = 1.15-3.77). No class showed a significant association in younger participants (<60 years) or shorter trials (<52 weeks). Across available RCT evidence, GLP1RA prescription generally had a relatively lower gastric neoplasm risk than controls. In contrast, among patients with diabetes mellitus receiving longer-term therapy, GLP1RAs may be the preferable option from the perspective of gastric neoplasm risk, while DPP4is warrant heightened vigilance and mechanistic clarification. These findings support improved neoplasms ascertainment in future trials rather than immediate prescribing changes.
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.