4.7 Article

Sleep Duration and Risk of Type 2 Diabetes: A Meta-analysis of Prospective Studies

Journal

DIABETES CARE
Volume 38, Issue 3, Pages 529-537

Publisher

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/dc14-2073

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Science and Technology Support Program [2012BAI02B02]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE It remains unclear how many hours of sleep are associated with the lowest risk of type 2 diabetes. This meta-analysis was performed to assess the dose-response relationship between sleep duration and risk of type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS PubMed and Embase were searched up to 20 March 2014 for prospective observational studies that assessed the relationship of sleep duration and risk of type 2 diabetes. Both semiparametric and parametric methods were used. RESULTS Ten articles with 11 reports were eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis. A total of 18,443 incident cases of type 2 diabetes were ascertained among 482,502 participants with follow-up periods ranging from 2.5 to 16 years. A U-shaped dose-response relationship was observed between sleep duration and risk of type 2 diabetes, with the lowest risk observed at a sleep duration category of 7-8 h per day. Compared with 7-h sleep duration per day, the pooled relative risks for type 2 diabetes were 1.09 (95% CI 1.04-1.15) for each 1-h shorter sleep duration among individuals who slept <7 h per day and 1.14 (1.03-1.26) for each 1-h increment of sleep duration among individuals with longer sleep duration. CONCLUSIONS Our dose-response meta-analysis of prospective studies shows a U-shaped relationship between sleep duration and risk of type 2 diabetes, with the lowest type 2 diabetes risk at 7-8 h per day of sleep duration. Both short and long sleep duration are associated with a significantly increased risk of type 2 diabetes, underscoring the importance of appropriate sleep duration in the delay or prevention of type 2 diabetes.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available