Evaluating bowel obstruction and ileus events in patients on GLP-1 receptor agonists: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction This research evaluated the association between glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) and bowel obstruction or ileus.Methods We searched databases, including Medline, Embase, and Cochrane, for studies on adult patients treated with GLP-1 RA. We included randomized control trials (RCT), cohort, case-control studies, and case reports. We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool to evaluate the quality of RCTs and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort and case-control studies.Results Out of 317 records identified, 14 studies were included in the systematic review. The meta-analysis included 6 studies with a combined total of 550,426 participants. The use of GLP-1 RA did not show an incremental risk of bowel obstruction or ileus compared to controls (OR 1.95, 95% CI 0.43-8.79). However, the studies had high heterogeneity (I2 = 94%). A subgroup analysis by specific medication revealed that liraglutide was associated with a significantly high risk of bowel obstruction or ileus (OR 3.0, 95% CI 2.03-4.45; I2 = 0%).Conclusions GLP-1 receptor agonists do not significantly increase the risk of bowel obstruction or ileus. However, liraglutide is associated with a higher risk compared to semaglutide. Clinicians should remain aware of these rare events while recognizing the benefits of GLP-1 receptor agonists for glycemic control and cardiovascular health.PROSPERO registration CRD42024585971
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".