4.6 Review

Pancreatic size and fat content in diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of imaging studies

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 12, Issue 7, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0180911

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Fundo de Incentivo a Pesquisa e Ensino do Hospital de Clinicas de Porto Alegre
  2. Conselho de Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives Imaging studies are expected to produce reliable information regarding the size and fat content of the pancreas. However, the available studies have produced inconclusive results. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of imaging studies assessing pancreas size and fat content in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Methods Medline and Embase databases were performed. Studies evaluating pancreatic size (diameter, area or volume) and/or fat content by ultrasound, computed tomography, or magnetic resonance imaging in patients with T1DM and/or T2DM as compared to healthy controls were selected. Seventeen studies including 3,403 subjects (284 T1DM patients, 1,139 T2DM patients, and 1,980 control subjects) were selected for meta-analyses. Pancreas diameter, area, volume, density, and fat percentage were evaluated. Results Pancreatic volume was reduced in T1DM and T2DM vs. controls (T1DM vs. controls: -38.72 cm3, 95% CI: -52.25 to -25.19, I2 = 70.2%, p for heterogeneity = 0.018; and T2DM vs. controls: -12.18 cm3, 95% CI: -19.1 to -5.25, I2 = 79.3%, p for heterogeneity = 0.001). Fat content was higher in T2DM vs. controls (+2.73%, 95% CI 0.55 to 4.91, I-2 = 82.0%, p for heterogeneity<0.001). Conclusions Individuals with T1DM and T2DM have reduced pancreas size in comparison with control subjects. Patients with T2DM have increased pancreatic fat content.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available