Efficacy of liraglutide in patients with diabetic nephropathy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
- Design
- Meta-analysis · 1580 participants · Mixed outcome
- Match to healthy normal-weight adults aged 55–75
- Population unclear[Auto] Synthesis; population mix not determinable from abstract. Review the included-study populations.
- Could weight loss explain it?
- Unknown[Auto] Not addressed in abstract.
- Study tier
- Study tier 2[Auto] Systematic review/meta-analysis of randomized trials (auto-provisional; heterogeneity and included-study quality not assessed).
- Assessment
- Version 4 · Checked against the source by AI · Oct 19, 2026
Study facts come from the paper. Population match, weight-loss explanation and study tier are our judgments, made against the reference group of healthy normal-weight adults aged 55–75.
In 18 randomized trials (1,580 people) with type 2 diabetic kidney disease, liraglutide lowered urine albumin (UACR), serum creatinine and cystatin C (lab markers), as well as blood glucose, BMI and the inflammatory markers TNF-α and IL-6, but eGFR and BUN, standard kidney-function measures, did not differ from control. These are lab changes, not kidney outcomes.
What the study reported
- Drugs
- Liraglutide
- Primary outcome
- Not extracted
- Effect
- Not extracted
- 95% confidence interval
- Not extracted
- Follow-up
- Not stated
- Adverse events
- Not extracted
- Limitations
- Not extracted
Who was studied
- Diabetes status
- type 2 diabetes (all)
- Ckd status
- diabetic nephropathy (all)
- Sample size
- 1580
Study quality details
- Study design
- Meta-analysis
- Sample size
- 1580
- Randomization
- n/a
- Blinding
- not stated
- Comparator
- not stated
- Follow up duration
- not stated
- Outcome type
- mixed
- Replication
- not assessed (auto)
- Consistency with other evidence
- not assessed (auto)
- Population applicability
- UNKNOWN
- Statistical precision
- not extracted
- Risk of bias
- not assessed (auto)
- Peer review status
- yes
How far the review's own results can be trusted
This record is a systematic review, so it is appraised with AMSTAR 2, which rates how far the review's own pooled results can be trusted. It does not grade the trials inside the review; those are appraised one by one.
On this scale High is the best rating. The levels run High, Moderate, Low, Critically low: Critically low confidence in the review is the worst rating a review can receive, and means it should not be relied on for an accurate summary. That is the opposite direction to the risk-of-bias scale used for single trials, where High is the worst.
Critically low confidence in the review · AMSTAR 2 · AI: two passes agreed (item splits settled by owner ruling)
Why: 5 critical items fail: review methods set out in a protocol before the review began; comprehensive literature search; list of excluded studies, with reasons; appropriate methods for combining results; risk of bias taken into account when interpreting the results.
What it is used for here: Used only to find trials. A review at this level does not supply a pooled result to any outcome in this collection; the trials it lists are appraised on their own.
| Item | Answer |
|---|---|
| 1 Research question and inclusion criteria include the PICO components | Yes |
| 2 · critical Review methods set out in a protocol before the review began | No — a critical flaw |
| 3 Choice of included study designs explained | No |
| 4 · critical Comprehensive literature search | No — a critical flaw |
| 5 Study selection done by two reviewers independently | Yes |
| 6 Data extraction done by two reviewers independently | No |
| 7 · critical List of excluded studies, with reasons | No — a critical flaw |
| 8 Included studies described in adequate detail | Partial Yes |
| 9 · critical Satisfactory technique for assessing risk of bias in the included studies | Yes |
| 10 Funding of the included studies reported | No |
| 11 · critical Appropriate methods for combining results | No — a critical flaw |
| 12 Effect of risk of bias on the pooled results assessed | No |
| 13 · critical Risk of bias taken into account when interpreting the results | No — a critical flaw |
| 14 Differences between study results explained and discussed | No |
| 15 · critical Publication bias investigated and its likely impact discussed | Yes |
| 16 Review authors' conflicts of interest and funding reported | Yes |
Where the two reviewers differed: item 13 (risk of bias taken into account when interpreting the results): one read Yes, the other No; settled at No by a recorded ruling.
Two reviewers assessed the review independently against a written guide (AMSTAR 2 guide, version 1.2), from the full text and retrieved supplements, 2026-10-05.
Funding and conflicts
- Funding
- Yunnan Health Technical Training Project of High-level Talents and Yunnan Basic Research Projects - General Program (full text)
- Industry funded
- No
- Manufacturer
- None identified
- Sponsor role
- not reported in abstract
- Author conflicts
- The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
- Independent replication
- unknown
Funding is shown on every study and never used to score it.
The source, as retrieved
Abstract
[BACKGROUND] The efficacy of liraglutide to treat type 2 diabetic nephropathy (T2DN) remains controversial. Thus, we conducted this meta-analysis to systematically evaluate the clinical effect of liraglutide on T2DN patients. [METHODS] Eight databases (PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang database, China Science and Technology Journal Database, and China Biology Medicine Database (CBM)) were searched for published articles to evaluate the clinical efficacy of liraglutide in subjects with T2DN. The Revman 5.3 and Stata 13 software were used for analyses and plotting. [RESULTS] A total of 18 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 1580 diabetic nephropathy patients were screened. We found that the levels of UACR, Scr, Cysc were lower in the experimental group of T2DN patients treated with liraglutide than in the control group intervened without liraglutide. Liraglutide also reduced the levels of blood glucose (including FBG, PBG, and HbA1c), body mass index (BMI), and anti-inflammatory indicators (TNF-α, IL-6). However, there was no significant difference in BUN and eGFR between the experimental group and the control group. [CONCLUSIONS] Liraglutide reduced the levels of Blood Glucose, BMI, renal outcome indicators, and serum inflammatory factors of patients with T2DN, suggesting the beneficial effects of liraglutide on renal function.