Parity and risk of type 2 diabetes : a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis
Shan,Zhou,Xie,W. Bao,Yan Zhang,Ying Rong,Wei Yang,Liu
2016-01-01
Abstract:Objective: Epidemiologic studies regarding the association between parity and risk of type 2 diabetes have yielded inconsistent results. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis to determine the relation between parity and type 2 diabetes risk. Methods: We searched PubMed and Embase for published epidemiologic studies that assessed the relation between parity and risk of type 2 diabetes up to 31 March 2016. A dose-response random-effects model was used to combine study-specific relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Potential sources of heterogeneity were explored by meta-regression and subgroup analyses. Results: Seven cohort studies, 1 case-control study and 9 cross-sectional studies including 296 923 participants were eligible for inclusion. The combined RR for the highest versus lowest category of parity indicated a 54% increment in type 2 diabetes risk (95% CI: 29–83%). In the cubic spline model, a nonlinear association was found between parity and risk of type 2 diabetes (P = 0.02 for nonlinearity). Compared with nulliparous women, the estimated RR (95% CI) of type 2 diabetes for women with one to seven children was 1.01 (0.96–1.07), 1.08 (1.00–1.16), 1.20 (1.12–1.30), 1.32 (1.22–1.42), 1.37 (1.27–1.48), 1.39 (1.26–1.52) and 1.39 (1.23–1.57) respectively. Conclusions: Higher parity is significantly associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes. Further studies are warranted to fully adjust for the potential confounders and explore the causality between parity and type 2 diabetes risk. Introduction The prevalence of diabetes mellitus has increased substantially in recent decades in both developed and developing countries (1). According to data of the International Diabetes Federation, the number of people living with diabetes is 415 million in 2015 (a number previously forecast for 2030), and will escalate to 642 million by 2040 (2). Diabetes is also a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease which is still the leading cause of death and imposes a significant public health as well as financial burden on society (3). Thus, the primary prevention of diabetes is clearly imperative. Review Correspondence should be addressed to W Yang or L Liu Email lgliu@mails.tjmu.edu.cn or yw8278@hotmail.com Downloaded from Bioscientifica.com at 09/07/2018 06:51:04AM via free access www.eje-online.org Eu ro p ea n J o u rn al o f En d o cr in o lo g y 175:5 R232 Review P Li and others Parity and type 2 diabetes Pregnancy is an essential stage of life for most women. In this stage, women are prone to alter their composition of diet, increase energy intake, reduce the duration and intensity of physical activity; these changes of lifestyle may impact on women’s health including insulin resistance, fat accumulation, redistribution, dyslipidemia and inflammation, especially on the risk of diabetes and other cardiometabolic disease in future life (4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9). Among the different reproductive factors that have been investigated, parity (the number of live births in a woman’s lifetime) is less prone to recall bias and misclassification (10). Until now, many studies have focused on the role of parity in the development of type 2 diabetes, suggesting that parity might be independently associated with glucose tolerance (11, 12), impaired fasting glucose (11, 13) and type 2 diabetes (13, 14, 15, 16). But it remains controversial since other studies have found no relationship between parity and risk of type 2 diabetes (17, 18, 19). Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of current available epidemiologic studies to quantify the association between parity and risk of type 2 diabetes. Methods Search strategy We conducted a systematic literature search on the PubMed (Medline) and Embase databases from inception to March 2016 for studies investigating the association between parity and diabetes mellitus. PubMed search terms were (parity OR reproductive history OR live birth OR gravidity) AND (“Diabetes Mellitus” [Mesh] OR “diabetes” [All Fields]). Similar search terms were used for Embase. In addition, we also scrutinized reference from relevant original papers to identify further pertinent studies. No language restrictions were imposed. We followed the standard guidelines for conducting meta-analysis of observational studies and reporting the results (20). Study selection Published studies were included in this meta-analysis if they met the following criteria: the exposure of interest was parity; the outcome was type 2 diabetes; and the study reported adjusted relative risks (RRs), odds ratios (ORs) or hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for at least three quantitative categories of parity number or provided risk estimates per live birth in original. We excluded nonhuman studies, reviews, commentaries, editorials, letters, meeting abstracts, case reports and studies that did not include parity as the exposure and type 2 diabetes as the outcome. We also excluded studies in which the association of parity with impaired glucose tolerance/impaired fasting glucose, but not the association of parity with type 2 diabetes, was examined. If a study provided raw data which may contribute to the calculation of unadjusted risk estimates, but was not able to derive the adjusted risk estimates, we excluded it due to the lack of controlling for potential effects from confounding factors such as age or body mass index (BMI) on the risk estimates. Two investigators (P L and M X) independently screened all studies by title or abstract and then by full-text assessment. Any disagreements were solved by discussion with the senior reviewer (Z S). Data extraction and quality assessment For each eligible study, the following data were extracted: authors, year of publication, study design, study name, country of origin, study period and years of follow-up (for cohort study), participants’ age, number of participants and cases, exposure and outcome assessment, covariates adjusted in the multivariable models, parity number categories, the corresponding risk estimates (with their 95% CIs) and number of cases along with participants or person-years for all categories of parity number. If multiple estimates of the association were available, we abstracted the estimate that adjusted for most potentially confounding variables. If the appropriate data were not readily available, we requested the data from the study’s original authors. For cohort and case-control studies, quality assessments were performed according to the NewcastleOttawa Quality Assessment Scale (21). This scale awards a maximum of 9 points to each cohort study: 4 for selection of participants and measurement of exposure, 2 for comparability of cohorts on the basis of the design or analysis and 3 for assessment of outcomes and adequacy of follow-up. Similar items were performed for casecontrol studies. We assigned scores of 0–3, 4–6 and 7–9 for low, moderate and high quality of studies respectively. Assessment involving 11 items recommended by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality was used for cross-sectional studies (22). The quality of the studies was evaluated according to the established questions which awards a maximum of 11 points. For each item, 1 point was awarded if the answer was ‘yes’ while 0 point if the answer was ‘no’, ‘unable to determine’ or ‘not applicable’. Downloaded from Bioscientifica.com at 09/07/2018 06:51:04AM via free access Eu ro p ea n J o u rn al o f En d o cr in o lo g y www.eje-online.org 175:5 R233 Review P Li and others Parity and type 2 diabetes Data extraction and quality assessment were conducted independently by two investigators (P L and L Z); any discrepancy between the two authors was solved by discussion with the senior reviewer (Z S). Statistical analysis In this meta-analysis, we used the RRs and 95% CIs as the effect size for all included studies. Since the incidence of diabetes is adequately low in human, the ORs and HRs were considered equivalent to RRs, thereby we used RRs representing all of these measures for simplicity. For studies that did not use the category of lowest parity number as referent, we used the valid count method proposed by Hamling et al. (23) to recalculate the relative risks. Moreover, as for study that reported results separately according to different age groups, races or geographic regions, we treated it as independent reports. First, we evaluated the summary RR and 95% CIs for the highest versus the lowest categories of parity number. Given that significant heterogeneity was evident in this analysis, the risk estimates were pooled using the randomeffects model (DerSimonian and Laird method) (24). Then, we explored the possible linear or nonlinear relationship between parity number and risk of type 2 diabetes using a random-effects dose-response meta-analysis according to the method proposed by Greenland and Longnecker (25) and Orsini et al. (26). Nearly half of the reports have investigated the linear relation between parity and type 2 diabetes, and provided RR per live birth in original. Thus, we explored the possible linear relationship at first. For reports that did not explore the linear relationship, we computed an RR with 95% CIs for an increased number of parity according to the existing data. The distribution of cases and person-years/number of participants and the RRs with 95% CIs for at least three quantitative exposure categories were extracted according to the method. For each study, the median or mean level of exposure category was assigned to the corresponding RR. If the median or mean exposure level was not reported in the study, we assigned the midpoint of upper and lower boundaries in each category as the value of exposure. When the highest category was open-ended, we assumed that the lower boundary plus 25% increment was the median level. To further examine the shape of the associat