4.5 Article

Type 2 diabetes and risk of low-energy fractures in postmenopausal women: meta-analysis of observational studies

期刊

AGING CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH
卷 29, 期 2, 页码 301-309

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s40520-016-0562-1

关键词

Osteoporosis; Fracture; Type 2 diabetes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Observational studies on osteoporotic fractures in patients with type 2 diabetes indicate their increased incidence compared to those without diabetes, but results are inconsistent. Currently, type 2 diabetes is not considered as an independent risk factor for low-energy fractures in elder subjects. The aim of the study was to assess the association between type 2 diabetes and risk for hip and vertebral fractures in postmenopausal women. Materials and methods We searched Medline, Web of Science and Cochrane databases for articles published before September 2013. Studies assessing fractures in women aged >50 diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, regardless of the diabetes treatment, were deemed eligible. To estimate fracture risk meta-analysis in a random effect model was performed. The results were shown by the odds ratio (OR) and 95 % confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity was tested using a Q-Cochrane test (significance was analyzed with p < 0.10) and I-2 measure. Results A total of 15 observational studies (11 cohort and 4 cross-sectional, 263.006 diabetics and 502.115 controls) were included. Thirteen papers provided information on the incidence of hip fractures, and seven on vertebral ones. The meta-analysis revealed type 2 diabetes was associated with higher risk for hip fracture (OR 1.296, 95 % CI (1.069-1.571), but not vertebral fracture (OR = 1.134, 95 % CI (0.936-1.374). There was significant heterogeneity between hip fracture studies. American origin was identified as a potential source of such heterogeneity. Conclusions The results of our meta-analysis indicate there is an increased risk for hip fracture in postmenopausal women with type 2 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

4.5
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