ReviewCureus2026
Risk of Depression With Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 (GLP-1) Receptor Agonists Compared to Other Antidiabetic Medications in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are widely used for the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) due to their metabolic and cardiovascular benefits; however, concerns have emerged regarding potential neuropsychiatric effects, including depression. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the association between GLP-1 RA use and the risk of developing depression in adults with T2DM. A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library was conducted from database inception through April 2025 to identify randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing GLP-1 RAs with other antidiabetic therapies. The primary outcome was incident depression. Secondary outcomes included anxiety-related outcomes and reported adverse events. Risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, where appropriate. Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. Nine studies involving 1,735,325 patients met the inclusion criteria, of which five contributed to the quantitative synthesis. The meta-analysis demonstrated no statistically significant difference in the risk of incident depression between GLP-1 RA users and those receiving other antidiabetic agents (HR 1.05; 95% CI 0.97-1.14), with substantial heterogeneity observed (I² = 83.2%). Sensitivity analysis showed that exclusion of one influential study increased the pooled estimate to a statistically significant hazard ratio (HR 1.09; 95% CI 1.01-1.19; p = 0.035). Limited evidence suggested potential benefits in anxiety-related outcomes in some studies, although findings were heterogeneous and not amenable to quantitative synthesis. Reported adverse events were predominantly gastrointestinal. Overall, the available evidence suggests that GLP-1 RA use is not associated with an increased risk of depression in adults with type 2 diabetes, though heterogeneity across studies highlights the need for further prospective research with standardized psychiatric outcome assessment.
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.