ReviewJournal of diabetes2026
Real-World vs. Randomized Trial Evidence for Incretin-Based Therapies: A Narrative Review.
Review in Journal of diabetes, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Incretin-based therapies have transformed the management of obesity and type 2 diabetes (T2D). Pivotal randomized controlled trials (RCTs) report substantial weight loss and glycemic improvements; the extent to which these translate to clinical populations remains uncertain. Seven 2026-published RCT meta-analyses (comprising 127 RCTs and 58 976 participants) were compared with 26 real-world studies identified through structured PubMed search. Primary outcomes were body weight loss and HbA1c reduction; secondary outcomes included major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), neurological end-points, and safety. The comparison is descriptive. For T2D, real-world semaglutide achieved 4.7-10.5 kg weight loss (6-12 months) and 1.0-1.3 percentage-point HbA1c reductions, lower than RCT meta-analytic estimates (tirzepatide mean difference [MD] -9.55% vs. placebo). Without diabetes, real-world persister analyses (SHAPE study: semaglutide -14.1%, tirzepatide -16.5%) approximated per-protocol RCT estimates (semaglutide -14.9%, tirzepatide 15 mg -20.9%), whereas intention-to-treat real-world estimates were substantially lower. Just 13% of semaglutide users reached 2.4 mg and 25.9% of tirzepatide users reached 15 mg. Real-world cardiovascular data showed 20%-46% MACE reductions, broadly consistent with the RCT reduction. Differences between T2D and non-T2D populations likely reflect channeling bias and differential follow-up. Real-world incretin-based therapy effectiveness is broadly consistent with RCT efficacy when dose attainment is accounted for. High discontinuation rates (20%-50% within 1 year) and prior GLP-1 RA exposure track with the observed efficacy gap. Clinicians can expect RCT-level outcomes in patients who tolerate and persist with target doses. Head-to-head cardiovascular outcome trials comparing tirzepatide and semaglutide in non-diabetic populations are needed.
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.