4.6 Review

The risk of hip and non-vertebral fractures in type 1 and type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis update

期刊

BONE
卷 137, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.bone.2020.115457

关键词

Diabetes; Fracture risk; Hip fracture; Non-vertebral fracture; Meta-analysis

资金

  1. Amgen Inc. (USA) [20167132]
  2. MRC [MR/P020941/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Diabetes is associated with increased fracture risk but we do not know what affects this risk. We investigated the risk of hip and non-vertebral fractures in diabetes and whether this risk was affected by age, gender, body mass index, diabetes type and duration, insulin use and diabetic complications. Methods: We selected a previously published review to be updated. MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched up to March 2020. We included observational studies with age and gender-adjusted risk of fractures in adults with diabetes compared to adults without diabetes. We extracted data from published reports that we summarised using random effects model. Findings: From the 3140 records identified, 49 were included, 42 in the hip fracture analysis, reporting data from 17,571,738 participants with 319,652 fractures and 17 in the non-vertebral fracture review, reporting data from 2,978,487 participants with 181,228 fractures. We found an increase in the risk of fracture in diabetes both for hip (RR 4.93, 3.06-7.95, in type 1 diabetes and RR1.33, 1.19-1.49, in type 2 diabetes) and for non-vertebral fractures (RR 1.92, 0.92-3.99, in type 1 and RR 1.19, 1,11-1.28 in type 2). At the hip, the risk was higher in the younger population in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes. In those with type 2 diabetes, longer diabetes duration and insulin use was associated with an increased risk. We did not investigate the effect of bone density, falls, anti-diabetic drugs and hypoglycemia. Conclusion: Diabetes is associated with an increase in both hip and non-vertebral fracture risk.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据