Open AccessUnstable bodyweight and incident type 2 diabetes mellitus: A meta‐analysis
Author(s) -
Kodama Satoru,
Fujihara Kazuya,
Ishiguro Hajime,
Horikawa Chika,
Ohara Nobumasa,
Yachi Yoko,
Tanaka Shiro,
Shimano Hitoshi,
Kato Kiminori,
Hanyu Osamu,
Sone Hirohito
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
journal of diabetes investigation
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.089
H-Index - 50
eISSN - 2040-1124
pISSN - 2040-1116
DOI - 10.1111/jdi.12623
Subject(s) - medicine , meta analysis , relative risk , diabetes mellitus , confidence interval , type 2 diabetes mellitus , publication bias , type 2 diabetes , endocrinology
Aims/Introduction The present meta‐analysis aimed to clarify the association of unstable bodyweight with the risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus, an association that has been controversial among longitudinal studies. Materials and Methods An electronic literature search using EMBASE and MEDLINE was followed up to 31 August 2016. The relative risks ( RR s) of type 2 diabetes mellitus in individuals with unstable bodyweight were pooled using the inverse variance method. Results Eight studies were eligible for the meta‐analysis. The median duration of measurements of weight change and follow‐up years for ascertaining type 2 diabetes mellitus were 13.5 and 9.4 years, respectively. The pooled RR for the least vs most stable category was 1.33 (95% confidence interval 1.12–1.57). Between‐study heterogeneity was statistically significant ( P = 0.048). Whether type 2 diabetes mellitus was ascertained by blood testing explained 66.0% of the variance in the logarithm of RR ( P = 0.02). In three studies in which blood testing was carried out, type 2 diabetes mellitus risk was not significant ( RR 1.06, 95% confidence interval 0.91–1.25). Furthermore, publication bias that inflated type 2 diabetes mellitus risk was statistically detected by Egger's test ( P = 0.09). Conclusions Unstable bodyweight might be modestly associated with the elevated risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus; although serious biases, such as diagnostic suspicion bias and publication bias, made it difficult to assess this association.