ReviewArchives of medical science : AMS2026
GLP-1 receptor agonists and tendon healing: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Archives of medical science : AMS, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) are prescribed for cardiometabolic indications and may exert anti-inflammatory and tissue-regenerative effects. However, their effect on tendon healing and tendon-related surgical outcomes remains unclear. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we evaluated the available preclinical and clinical evidence on the effects of GLP-1RAs on tendon healing and related musculoskeletal outcomes. Methods: A systematic search of the PubMed, Embase, Medline, Scopus, Clinical Key, Google Scholar, and Cochrane databases was conducted from database inception to December 31, 2025. Eligible studies included animal studies, human experimental studies, and retrospective clinical cohorts that evaluated GLP-1RA exposure in relation to tendon biology, tendon healing, or tendon-related orthopedic outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using design-appropriate tools, including SYRCLE, ROBINS-I, the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, SANRA, AMSTAR 2, and the NIH assessment tool. Results: A total of 41 studies were included: eight animal studies, three human experimental studies, six retrospective cohort studies, one prospective study, 18 review or commentary articles, and five systematic reviews. Preclinical evidence generally supported the tendon-promoting effects of GLP-1RAs through the modulation of inflammation, fibroblast activity, angiogenesis, and extracellular matrix remodeling. Quantitative synthesis of two retrospective cohorts evaluating revision risk after total shoulder arthroplasty suggested a lower risk among GLP-1RA users than non-users. However, only two studies were eligible for pooling, and significant clinical heterogeneity remained across the available cohorts. Conclusions: GLP-1RAs demonstrate biologically plausible tendon healing benefits in preclinical models, with a potentially favorable association with selected postoperative outcomes; however, causal inference remains limited by retrospective design, heterogeneity, and potential confounding factors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.