Copyright: ©Author(s) 2026.
World J Methodol. Sep 20, 2026; 16(3): 119385
Published online Sep 20, 2026. doi: 10.5662/wjm.119385
Published online Sep 20, 2026. doi: 10.5662/wjm.119385
Table 1 The effects of glucagon-like peptide receptors-1 agonists on erectile dysfunction
| Ref. | Country | Age/years/ | BMI/GLP-1 agonists/control | Study type | Duration | GLP-1 type | Control | Score before | Score after | Number of patients/GLP-1 agonists/control |
| Defeudis et al[19] | Italy | 64.1 ± 9.9 vs 62.3 ± 7.6 | 28.1 ± 3.6 vs 29.3 ± 5.6 | Prospetive | 48 months | GLP-1 agonists | Metformin | 15.5 ± 5.7 vs 16.7 ± 4.7 | - | 20 vs 51 |
| Giagull et al[20] | Italy | 53.5 ± 4.4 | 34.2 ± 2.4 | Retro. | 12 months | Liraglutide | Cross-over | 12 ± 2.2 vs 14.6 ± 1.7 | 14.6 ± 1.7 vs 19.9 ± 2 | 30 vs 16 |
| Giagulli et al[21] | Italy | 51.1 ± 2.9 | 33.5 ± 1.4 | Retro. | 12 months | Dulaglutide | Metformin | 15.7 ± 1.7 vs 15.1 ± 1.1 | 18.0 ± 1.0 vs 19.1 ± 1.2 | 14 vs 14 |
| Giagulli et al[21] | Italy | 49.8 ± 2.9 | 34.0 ± 1.5 | Retro | 12 months | Liraglutide | Metformin | 15.7 ± 1.7 vs 15.1 ± 1.1 | 15.1 ± 1.1 vs 18.7 ± 0.9 | 16 vs 16 |
| La Vignera et al[22] | Italy | 56.3 ± 4.7 vs 55.1 ± 5.2 | 35.3 ± 3.0 vs 34.6 ± 3.4 | Pilot | 8 weeks | Tirzepatide | Pilot | 6.6 ± 1.5 vs 7.1 ± 1.25 | 8.8 ± 1.5 vs 7.3 ± 1.25 | 28 vs 30 |
| Lengsfeld et al[23] | Switzerland | 23.5 ± 4.15 vs 25 ± 3.25 | 24.1 ± 1.35 vs 23.2 ± 1.15 | Trial | 4 weeks | Dulaglutide | Placebo | 9.8 ± 1 vs 10.4 ± 0.7 | 10.8 ± 2.6 vs 11 ± 1.9 | 12 vs 12 |
| Lisco et al[24] | Italy | 59 ± 4.5 vs 60 ± 3 | 34 ± 1.7 vs 33.7 ± 1.7 | Retro. | 12 months | Not specified | Metformin | 15.3 ± 1.4 vs 15.7 ± 1.7 | 18.9 ± 1.2 vs 16.7 ± 1.5 | 63 vs 45 |
Table 2 Testicular-pituitary hormones in the included studies
| Ref. | TT before GLP-1 agonists | TT, after GLP-1 agonists | FT, before GLP-1 agonists | FT, after GLP-1 agonists | SHBG, before GLP-1 agonists | SHBG, after GLP-1 agonists | LH, before GLP-1 agonists | LH, after GLP-1 agonists | FSH, before GLP-1 agonists | FSH, GLP-1 agonists |
| Giagull et al[20] | 430.8 ± 51.8 | 450.8 ± 42.4 | 7.95 ± 1.2 | 8.3 ± 0.95 | 37.7 ± 2.4 | 39.0 ± 1.6 | Not assessed | Not assessed | Not assessed | Not assessed |
| Giagulli et al[21] | 259 ± 12 | 310 ± 37 | 4.9 ± 0.3 | 5.6 ± 0.7 | 34.5 ± 2.20 | 39.4 ± 1.7 | 6.6 ± 0.8 | 6.8 ± 0.4 | 6.5 ± 0.8 | 6.8 ± 0.5 |
| Giagulli et al[21] | 262 ± 11 | 328 ± 33 | 5 ± 0.3 | 6 ± 0.6 | 34.6 ± 2.3 | 39 ± 1.8 | 6.2. ± 0.7 | 6.8 ± 2.8 | 6.6 ± 0.7 | 6.9 ± 0.5 |
| La Vignera et al[22] | 140 ± 60 | 410 ± 50 | 5.1 ± 0.64 | Not assessed | 14 ± 3 | 36 ± 4 | 2.3 ± 0.3 | 3.2 ± 0.2 | 1.6 ± 0.3 | 2.6 ± 0.2 |
| Lengsfeld et al[23] | 19.7 ± 2.9 | 20.4. ± 3.2 | 0.4 ± 0.1 | 0.4 ± 0.1 | 36.5 ± 9.69 | 40.6. ± 4.68 | 5.2 ± 1.48 | 4.5 ± 1 | 3.1 ± 1.83 | 3.1 ± 1.68 |
| Lisco et al[24] | 303.7 ± 41.7 | 337.7 ± 34.7 | 5.9 ± 1.3 | 6.6 ± 0.42 | 35.4 ± 2.1 | 39.4 ± 1.7 | 6.3 ± 0.8 | 6.8 ± 0.8 | 6.6 ± 0.7 | 6.9 ± 0.7 |
Table 3 Newcastle-Ottawa scale risk of bias assessment tool
Table 4 Analysis of the quality of evidence by GRADE
| Outcome | Studies | Study design | Risk of bias | Inconsistency | Indirectness | Imprecision | Other considerations | GRADE |
| ED | 7 | Trial = 1, retrospective = 4, pilot study = 1 | Serious | Serious (I2 = 90%) | Not serious | Not serious | None | Very low |
| TT | 6 | Trial = 1, retrospective = 3, pilot study = 1 | Serious | Serious (I2 = 99%) | Not serious | Not serious | None | Very low |
| FT | 5 | Trial = 1, retrospective = 3, pilot study = 1 | Serious | Serious (I2 = 86%) | Not serious | Not serious | None | Very low |
| SHBG | 6 | Trial = 1, retrospective = 4, pilot study = 1 | Serious | Serious (I2 = 99%) | Not serious | Not serious | None | Very low |
| LH | 5 | Trial = 1, retrospective = 3, pilot study = 1 | Serious | Serious (I2 = 91%) | Not serious | Not serious | None | Very low |
| FSH | 5 | Trial = 1, retrospective = 3, pilot study = 1 | Serious | Serious (I2 = 91%) | Not serious | Not serious | None | Very low |
- Citation: Mirghani HO, AlQurashi AM. Glucagon-like receptor-1 agonists and impotence: A meta-analysis. World J Methodol 2026; 16(3): 119385
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2222-0682/full/v16/i3/119385.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5662/wjm.119385