BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge
Meta-Analysis
Copyright: ©Author(s) 2026.
World J Methodol. Sep 20, 2026; 16(3): 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/GLP-1 agonists/control
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]Italy64.1 ± 9.9 vs 62.3 ± 7.628.1 ± 3.6 vs 29.3 ± 5.6Prospetive48 monthsGLP-1 agonistsMetformin15.5 ± 5.7 vs 16.7 ± 4.7-20 vs 51
Giagull et al[20]Italy53.5 ± 4.434.2 ± 2.4Retro.12 monthsLiraglutideCross-over12 ± 2.2 vs 14.6 ± 1.714.6 ± 1.7 vs 19.9 ± 230 vs 16
Giagulli et al[21]Italy51.1 ± 2.933.5 ± 1.4Retro.12 monthsDulaglutideMetformin15.7 ± 1.7 vs 15.1 ± 1.118.0 ± 1.0 vs 19.1 ± 1.214 vs 14
Giagulli et al[21]Italy49.8 ± 2.934.0 ± 1.5Retro12 monthsLiraglutideMetformin15.7 ± 1.7 vs 15.1 ± 1.115.1 ± 1.1 vs 18.7 ± 0.916 vs 16
La Vignera et al[22]Italy56.3 ± 4.7 vs 55.1 ± 5.235.3 ± 3.0 vs 34.6 ± 3.4Pilot8 weeksTirzepatidePilot6.6 ± 1.5 vs 7.1 ± 1.258.8 ± 1.5 vs 7.3 ± 1.2528 vs 30
Lengsfeld et al[23]Switzerland23.5 ± 4.15 vs 25 ± 3.2524.1 ± 1.35 vs 23.2 ± 1.15Trial4 weeksDulaglutide Placebo9.8 ± 1 vs 10.4 ± 0.710.8 ± 2.6 vs 11 ± 1.912 vs 12
Lisco et al[24]Italy59 ± 4.5 vs 60 ± 334 ± 1.7 vs 33.7 ± 1.7Retro.12 monthsNot specifiedMetformin15.3 ± 1.4 vs 15.7 ± 1.718.9 ± 1.2 vs 16.7 ± 1.563 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 ± 51.8450.8 ± 42.47.95 ± 1.28.3 ± 0.9537.7 ± 2.439.0 ± 1.6Not assessedNot assessedNot assessedNot assessed
Giagulli et al[21]259 ± 12310 ± 374.9 ± 0.35.6 ± 0.734.5 ± 2.2039.4 ± 1.76.6 ± 0.86.8 ± 0.46.5 ± 0.86.8 ± 0.5
Giagulli et al[21]262 ± 11328 ± 335 ± 0.36 ± 0.634.6 ± 2.339 ± 1.86.2. ± 0.76.8 ± 2.86.6 ± 0.76.9 ± 0.5
La Vignera et al[22]140 ± 60410 ± 505.1 ± 0.64Not assessed14 ± 336 ± 42.3 ± 0.33.2 ± 0.21.6 ± 0.32.6 ± 0.2
Lengsfeld et al[23]19.7 ± 2.920.4. ± 3.20.4 ± 0.10.4 ± 0.136.5 ± 9.6940.6. ± 4.685.2 ± 1.484.5 ± 13.1 ± 1.833.1 ± 1.68
Lisco et al[24]303.7 ± 41.7337.7 ± 34.75.9 ± 1.36.6 ± 0.4235.4 ± 2.139.4 ± 1.76.3 ± 0.86.8 ± 0.86.6 ± 0.76.9 ± 0.7
Table 3 Newcastle-Ottawa scale risk of bias assessment tool
Ref.
Selection
Comparability
Outcome
Total score
Defeudis et al[19]3227
Giagull et al[20]2226
Giagulli et al[21]4228
Giagulli et al[21]4228
La Vignera et al[22]2226
Lengsfeld et al[23]3228
Lisco et al[24]4228
Table 4 Analysis of the quality of evidence by GRADE
Outcome
Studies
Study design
Risk of bias
Inconsistency
Indirectness
Imprecision
Other considerations
GRADE
ED7Trial = 1, retrospective = 4, pilot study = 1SeriousSerious (I2 = 90%)Not seriousNot seriousNoneVery low
TT6Trial = 1, retrospective = 3, pilot study = 1SeriousSerious (I2 = 99%)Not seriousNot seriousNoneVery low
FT5Trial = 1, retrospective = 3, pilot study = 1SeriousSerious (I2 = 86%)Not seriousNot seriousNoneVery low
SHBG6Trial = 1, retrospective = 4, pilot study = 1SeriousSerious (I2 = 99%)Not seriousNot seriousNoneVery low
LH5Trial = 1, retrospective = 3, pilot study = 1SeriousSerious (I2 = 91%)Not seriousNot seriousNoneVery low
FSH5Trial = 1, retrospective = 3, pilot study = 1SeriousSerious (I2 = 91%)Not seriousNot serious NoneVery low


Write to the Help Desk