4.3 Review

Association between weight cycling and risk of developing diabetes in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

JOURNAL OF DIABETES INVESTIGATION
卷 12, 期 4, 页码 625-632

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jdi.13380

关键词

Body-weight fluctuation; Diabetes; Weight cycling

资金

  1. grant for Integrated Innovative Team for Major Human Diseases Program of Tongji Medical College, HUST
  2. National Key RAMP
  3. D Program of China [2016YFC0901203]
  4. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81974109, 81570740]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This meta-analysis revealed that weight cycling was a strong independent predictor of new-onset diabetes. Further studies are needed to detect the causal links between weight cycling and the risk of developing diabetes.
Aims/Introduction In this meta-analysis, we aimed to explore the association between bodyweight cycling (weight fluctuation) and the risk of developing diabetes. Materials and Methods We analyzed data from eligible cohort studies that assessed the association between weight cycling in adults and the risk of developing diabetes from online databases PubMed, Cochrane Library and EMBASE databases (1966 to April 2020). We pooled data using relative risks (RRs) with a random effects model. Results A total of 14 studies involving 253,766 participants, including 8,904 diabetes events, were included. One study included eight independent reports, resulting in 21 reports in 14 studies. Summary analysis showed that individuals who suffered weight cycling had a higher risk of diabetes (RR 1.23. 95% confidence interval 1.07-1.41;P = 0.003). However, the association between weight cycling and the risk of developing diabetes was not observed in obese participants (body mass index >= 30 kg/m(2);P = 0.08). Conclusions The present meta-analysis showed that weight cycling was a strong independent predictor of new-onset diabetes. Future studies are required to detect the causal links between weight cycling and the risk of developing diabetes.

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

4.3
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