Evidence Hub

Associations between exploratory dietary patterns and incident type 2 diabetes: a federated meta-analysis of individual participant data from 25 cohort studies

F. Jannasch, Stefan Dietrich, Tom R. P. Bishop, M. Pearce, A. Fanidi, G. O'Donoghue, D. O'Gorman, P. Marques-Vidal et al.

European Journal of Nutrition, 2022

390,664 participants · 11 citations

Abstract

In several studies, exploratory dietary patterns (DP), derived by principal component analysis, were inversely or positively associated with incident type 2 diabetes (T2D). However, findings remained study-specific, inconsistent and rarely replicated. This study aimed to investigate the associations between DPs and T2D in multiple cohorts across the world. This federated meta-analysis of individual participant data was based on 25 prospective cohort studies from 5 continents including a total of 390,664 participants with a follow-up for T2D (3.8–25.0 years). After data harmonization across cohorts we evaluated 15 previously identified T2D-related DPs for association with incident T2D estimating pooled incidence rate ratios (IRR) and confidence intervals (CI) by Piecewise Poisson regression and random-effects meta-analysis. 29,386 participants developed T2D during follow-up. Five DPs, characterized by higher intake of red meat, processed meat, French fries and refined grains, were associated with higher incidence of T2D. The strongest association was observed for a DP comprising these food groups besides others (IRRpooled per 1 SD = 1.104, 95% CI 1.059–1.151). Although heterogeneity was present (I2 = 85%), IRR exceeded 1 in 18 of the 20 meta-analyzed studies. Original DPs associated with lower T2D risk were not confirmed. Instead, a healthy DP (HDP1) was associated with higher T2D risk (IRRpooled per 1 SD = 1.057, 95% CI 1.027–1.088). Our findings from various cohorts…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 390,664 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free