TABLE 2.

GRADE profile evidence of the included studies

Quality assessment							No. patients		Effect		Quality	Importance
No. studies	Design	Risk of bias	Inconsistency	Indirectness	Imprecision	Other considerations	GLP‐1Ra	Control	Relative (95% CI)	Absolute
VAT (follow‐up 16–26 weeks; measured with: MRI, CT; Better indicated by lower values)
12	Randomized trials	Serious †	Serious ‡	No serious indirectness	No serious imprecision	None	296	300	–	MD 0.53 lower (0.7–0.36 lower) §	⊕⊕OO LOW	CRITICAL
SAT (follow‐up 16–26 weeks; measured with: MRI, CT; Better indicated by lower values)
12	Randomized trials	Serious †	No serious inconsistency	No serious indirectness	No serious imprecision	None	296	300	–	MD 0.44 lower (0.6–0.27 lower) §	⊕⊕⊕O MODERATE	CRITICAL
Weight (follow‐up 16–26 weeks; Better indicated by lower values)
11	Randomized trials	Serious †	No serious inconsistency	No serious indirectness	No serious imprecision	None	266	268	–	MD 3.59 lower (4.3–2.88 lower)	⊕⊕⊕O MODERATE	IMPORTANT
Waist (follow‐up 16–26 weeks; Better indicated by lower values)
9	Randomized trials	Serious †	No serious inconsistency	No serious indirectness	No serious imprecision	None	216	218	–	MD 3.43 lower (4.22–2.64 lower)	⊕⊕⊕O MODERATE	IMPORTANT
BMI (follow‐up 16–26 weeks; Better indicated by lower values)
10	Randomized trials	Serious †	No serious inconsistency	No serious indirectness	No serious imprecision	None	258	259	–	MD 1.11 lower (1.35–0.86 lower)	⊕⊕⊕O MODERATE	IMPORTANT

BMI, body mass index; CT, computed tomography; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; SAT, subcutaneous adipose tissue; VAT, visceral adipose tissue.

^† Some studies lost follow‐up and failure to adhere to the intention to treat principle when indicated.

^‡ I ² = 79%, P = 0.005, the heterogeneity between studies was large. Although subgroup analysis was carried out, the source of heterogeneity was not identified.

^§ This is a difference in standard deviations. A standard deviation of 0.40–0.70 represents a moderate effect.