Egg consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes: a prospective study and dose-response meta-analysis
Wallin A, Forouhi NG, Wolk A, Larsson SC
Diabetologia · 33 citations
How it was studied
- Design
- Meta-analysis (indexed by PubMed)
- Studied in
- People
- Main outcome
- Clinical events such as disease or death
- Intake measured by
- Food frequency questionnaire
Who paid for it
- Funding
- Independent funding
- University or hospital
- Karolinska Institutet
- Government
- Vetenskapsrådet
- Government
- Medical Research Council
- Government
- Swedish Research Council/Committee for Research Infrastructure
- Government
- MRC support
- University or hospital
- Karolinska Institutet’s Strategic Program in Epidemiology
- Grants
- Medical Research Council (MC_UU_12015/5); Medical Research Council (MC_UU_12015/5); Medical Research Council (MC_UU_12015)
Based on 6 listed funder(s) and full-text disclosure statement.
Publication
- Published
- 2016-03-18 · Diabetologia · vol. 59 · issue 6 · pp. 1204–1213
- Publisher
- Springer Science+Business Media
- Cited
- 46 citations · more than 97% of similar papers · 7.1× the field average
- Impact
- Top 10% most cited in its field
- References
- 40 works
- Access
- Open access (hybrid journal) · CC-BY
- Research areas
- Nutritional Studies and Diet · Obesity, Physical Activity, Diet · Phytoestrogen effects and research
- Keywords
- Medicine, Meta-analysis, Type 2 diabetes, Prospective cohort study, Diabetes mellitus, Proportional hazards model, Internal medicine, Cohort study, Hazard ratio, Confidence interval, Lower risk, Demography, Endocrinology
- MeSH
- humans, diabetes mellitus, type 2, diet surveys, proportional hazards models, risk factors, prospective studies, eggs, aged, middle aged, sweden, female, male, surveys and questionnaires
4 authors
From SE, GB
- Alice Wallin · correspondingKarolinska Institutet
- Nita G. ForouhiUniversity of Cambridge; MRC Epidemiology Unit; Medical Research Council
- Alicja WolkKarolinska Institutet
- Susanna C. LarssonKarolinska Institutet
Abstract
Aims/hypothesis
In this study, we aimed to investigate the association between egg consumption and type 2 diabetes risk in the Cohort of Swedish Men and to conduct a meta-analysis to summarise available prospective evidence on this association.
Methods
We followed 39,610 men (aged 45-79 years) from 1998 up to 2012 for incident type 2 diabetes. Egg consumption was assessed at baseline using a food frequency questionnaire. HRs (95% CIs) were estimated using Cox proportional hazards regression models. We searched PubMed (up to 14 December 2015) and reference lists of retrieved articles to identify eligible studies for meta-analysis.
Results
During the 15 years of follow up, 4,173 men were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. Compared with men who consumed eggs <1 time/week, the multivariable-adjusted HRs were 0.98 (95% CI 0.92, 1.05), 1.11 (95% CI 0.99, 1.24) and 1.11 (95% CI 0.95, 1.29) for egg consumption 1-2, 3-4 and ≥5 times/week, respectively (p trend = 0.06). In a random-effects dose-response meta-analysis, heterogeneity in the overall estimate was partly explained by differences across regions. The overall HRs for type 2 diabetes for each 3 times/week increment in consumption were 1.18 (95% CI 1.13, 1.24) in five US studies (I (2) = 0%) and 0.97 (95% CI 0.90, 1.05) in seven non-US studies.
Conclusions/interpretation
Our findings in Swedish men do not support an association between egg consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes. In a meta-analysis, frequent egg consumption was associated with a higher risk of type 2 diabetes in US studies only. Egg consumption habits and associated overall dietary patterns may differ between populations and could potentially explain the discrepancies between reported results. Given the inconsistent results, this relationship warrants further study.
Abstract via Europe PMC. Copyright remains with the authors or publisher (CC BY).
Community trust
Loading…
How much do you trust this study's findings?
Comments
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inSomething wrong here?
Flag this study if its information, labels or funding look wrong. An editor reviews every flag.
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inEducational information about published research. Not medical advice, and not a recommendation to start or stop anything.