4.5 Review

Risk of non-vertebral fractures in men with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies

Journal

EXPERIMENTAL GERONTOLOGY
Volume 150, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.exger.2021.111378

Keywords

Type 2 diabetes; Non-vertebral fracture; Sex differences; Meta-analysis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Men with T2DM have a slightly increased risk of non-vertebral fractures, but due to differences in bone strength, hormone levels, etc., they have a lower risk compared to women.
Purpose: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a chronic metabolic disorder. Research regarding the risk of nonvertebral fractures in men, especially in elderly men with T2DM, has not been a priority. T2DM is not a known independent risk factor for low-energy fractures in patients. We aimed to explore the relationship between men (especially older men) with T2DM and the risk of non-vertebral fractures and the reasons for the sex differences. Methods: The PubMed, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for articles on T2DM and fracture risk. A meta-analysis, including heterogeneity testing, publication bias analysis, and subgroup analysis of the included studies, was performed using STATA software. Results: Sixteen studies involving 1,758,225 participants, 59,909 non-vertebral fracture events, and 6430 vertebral fracture events were included in this research. The adjusted relative risk of T2DM and non-vertebral fracture in men was 1.20 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.09-1.31), implying that men with T2DM have a slightly increased risk of non-vertebral fracture. Conclusion: Male patients with T2DM have a slightly increased risk of non-vertebral fractures. Due to the differences in bone strength, sex steroid hormone levels, bone quality and muscle strength and balance, men with type 2 diabetes have a lower risk of non-vertebral fractures than women.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available