Critical Appraisal: Efficacy and Safety of Semaglutide in Obese or Overweight Patients Without Diabetes What is the stated purpose or clinical question?

Critical Appraisal: Efficacy and Safety of Semaglutide in Obese or Overweight Patients Without Diabetes

What is the stated purpose or clinical question?

• The stated purpose of the article is to assess the efficacy and safety of semaglutide in inducing weight loss in obese or overweight individuals who do not have diabetes. The researchers aim to evaluate how effective semaglutide is compared to placebo or other weight loss interventions and whether it presents any significant safety concerns.

• The clinical question driving the review can be framed as: “Is semaglutide an effective and safe pharmacological treatment for weight loss in obese or overweight adults without diabetes?” This question is relevant in the current clinical context, where obesity is a widespread and growing public health issue, and new, evidence-based solutions are continually being sought to help manage it.

What study design was used? What is your rationale?

• The study used a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This is clearly indicated in both the title and the methodology section of the article. The authors systematically searched databases for eligible RCTs involving semaglutide in non-diabetic overweight or obese adults and combined the results using meta-analytic techniques.

• The rationale for identifying this as a systematic review and meta-analysis lies in the structured approach to literature search, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and statistical pooling of results. Systematic reviews aim to eliminate bias through comprehensive search strategies and rigorous appraisal, while meta-analyses use quantitative methods to combine results across studies, increasing statistical power and precision.

What level of evidence is this article? How did you determine this?

• This article provides Level I evidence, the highest level on the evidence hierarchy.

• The determination is based on widely accepted evidence-based practice models, such as the Johns Hopkins or Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine hierarchies. In these models, Level I evidence includes systematic reviews and meta-analyses of multiple high-quality RCTs. Because the article synthesizes data from several RCTs with a systematic methodology and robust statistical analysis, it qualifies for this top level.

• Level I evidence is particularly valuable in informing clinical guidelines and practice decisions because it minimizes bias and increases reliability of the findings.

Is this primary or secondary research? Provide evidence to support your answer

• This article is an example of secondary research.

• Primary research involves original investigations where new data are collected directly from participants through experiments, surveys, or clinical trials. In contrast, secondary research involves the use of existing data or published studies to draw new conclusions.

• The authors of this article did not recruit participants or conduct any new experiments. Instead, they gathered and analyzed previously published RCTs on the use of semaglutide for weight loss in non-diabetic populations. Their role was to evaluate, summarize, and synthesize existing evidence. This makes the research secondary in nature.

• The methodology section confirms this by describing the database search process, criteria for study selection, data extraction from previously published trials, and statistical methods used for meta-analysis.