Skip to main content

Table 2 High and moderate overall level of certainty of the evidence in this meta-analysis

From: The impact of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists in the patients undergoing anesthesia or sedation: systematic review and meta-analysis

Outcomes

No. of participants (studies)

Follow-up

Certainty of the evidence (GRADE)

Relative effect (95% CI)

Anticipated absolute effects

Risk with control

Risk difference with GLP-1RA

Preoperative gastrointestinal symptoms

762 (3 RCTs)

Higha

OR 7.66 (3.42 to 17.70)

32 per 1000

172 more per 1000 (70 more to 340 more)

Insulin rescue administration

629 (5 RCTs)

High

OR 0.39 (0.23 to 0.68)

612 per 1000

231 fewer per 1000 (346 fewer to 94 fewer)

Glycemic level

590 (6 RCTs)

High

-

 

MD 0.73 lower (1.13 lower to 0.33 lower)

Hypoglycemic events

680 (7 RCTs)

Moderateb

OR 0.60 (0.29 to 1.24)

74 per 1000

28 fewer per 1000 (51 fewer to 16 more)

Hyperglycemic events

435 (3 RCTs)

High

OR 0.89 (0.59 to 1.34)

347 per 1000

26 fewer per 1000 (108 fewer to 69 more)

Postoperative inotropic support assessed with the following: use of dobutamine, milrinone, and epinephrine

453 (5 RCTs)

Moderateb

OR 0.57 (0.33 to 1.01)

173 per 1000

67 fewer per 1000 (109 fewer to 1 more)

Postoperative nausea/vomiting (PONV)

572 (5 RCTs)

Moderateb

OR 1.35 (0.82 to 2.21)

125 per 1000

37 more per 1000 (20 fewer to 115 more)

Postoperative atrial fibrillation (A fib)

465 (5 RCTs)

Moderateb

OR 1.02 (0.52 to 2.01)

124 per 1000

2 more per 1000 (56 fewer to 98 more)

30-day postoperative mortality rate

482 (4 RCTs)

Moderateb

OR 0.54 (0.14 to 2.05)

24 per 1000

11 fewer per 1000 (21 fewer to 24 more)

Residual gastric content assessed with endoscopy

991 (3 nonrandomized studies)

Highc

OR 6.08 (2.86 to 12.94)

33 per 1000

139 more per 1000 (56 more to 274 more)

  1. Patient or population: patients undergoing anesthesia/sedation. Setting: surgical and nonsurgical procedures. Intervention: GLP-1RA. Comparison: control. *The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI, confidence interval; MD, mean difference; OR, odds ratio. GRADE Working Group grades of evidence: High certainty, we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect; moderate certainty, we are moderately confident in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different; low certainty, our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect; very low certainty, we have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect. Explanations: aOne observational study was included and was classified as moderate by ROBINS-I. bFew events. cOnly observational studies and the risk of bias were classified as moderate by ROBINS-I