Table 2 Summary of findings.

From: The acute effect of glucagon on components of energy balance and glucose homoeostasis in adults without diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Outcomes

Relative effect (95% CI)

Number of participants(studies)

Quality of the evidence(GRADE)

Comments

Energy intake

SMD

–0.19 decrease with glucagon

(–0.59 decrease to 0.21 increase)

77 participants

(5 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝

Lowa

 

Energy expenditure

SMD

0.72 increase with glucagon

(0.37 increase to 1.08 increase)

59 participants

(5 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊕

High

 

Glucose

SMD

1.11 increase with glucagon

(0.60 increase to 1.62 increase)

159 participants

(13 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝

Lowb

Glucose response was not moderated by route of administration or total glucagon dose

Insulin

SMD

1.33 increase with glucagon

(0.88 increase to 1.77 increase)

147 participants

(12 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝

Lowc

Insulin response was not moderated by route of administration or total glucagon dose

  1. Acute glucagon administration compared with an energy-free control agent in adults without diabetes.
  2. Patient or population: adults without diabetes.
  3. Setting: laboratory environment.
  4. Intervention: acute glucagon administration.
  5. Comparison: energy-free control agent.
  6. GRADE Working Group grades of evidence.
  7. High certainty: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect.
  8. 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.
  9. Low certainty: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect.
  10. 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.
  11. CI confidence interval, SMD standardised mean difference.
  12. aThere was considerable heterogeneity (I2 = 81.11%; 95% CI, 41.18–97.87%) and 95% confidence interval contained zero. We therefore downgraded by two levels for inconsistency and imprecision.
  13. bThere was considerable heterogeneity (I2 = 82.41%; 95% CI, 55.39–93.88%) that could not be explained by meta-regression. Additionally, asymmetry in the funnel plot and the result of Egger’s regression test suggested possible publication bias. We therefore downgraded by two levels for inconsistency and publication bias.
  14. cThere was considerable heterogeneity (I2 = 83.43%, 95% CI, 58.43–94.55%) that could not be explained by meta-regression. Additionally, asymmetry in the funnel plot and the result of Egger’s regression test suggested possible publication bias. We therefore downgraded by two levels for inconsistency and publication bias.
Back to article page