Evidence Hub

Relation of active, passive, and quitting smoking with incident diabetes: a meta-analysis and systematic review

A. Pan, Yeli Wang, M. Talaei, F. Hu, Tangchun Wu

The Lancet Diabetes and Endocrinology, 2015

6 participants · 488 citations

Abstract

Background Cigarette smoking remains the leading avoidable cause of disease burden worldwide, and observational studies have linked various smoking behaviors (active and passive smoking and smoking cessation) with risk of type 2 diabetes. We did a meta-analysis of prospective studies assessing the relation of various smoking behaviors and diabetes risk. Methods We systematically searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases (up to 3 May 2015) with manual searches of the references of retrieved publications and relevant reviews. We included prospective studies that reported risk of type 2 diabetes by baseline smoking status. Relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using random-effects models, and subgroup analyses were performed by participant and study characteristics. Findings The search yielded 88 prospective studies with nearly 6 million participants and 295446 incident cases. Compared with never smoking, the pooled RR (95% CI) of type 2 diabetes was 1·37 (1·33-1·42) for current smoking (84 studies), 1·14 (1·10-1·18) for former smoking (47 studies), and 1·22 (1·10-1·35) for passive smoking (7 studies). The associations persisted in all subgroups, and a dose-response relation was found for current smoking and diabetes risk: the RRs (95% CIs) were 1·21 (1·10-1·33), 1·34 (1·27-1·41) and 1·57 (1·47-1·66) for light, moderate, and heavy smokers, respectively, compared with never smokers. We estimated that 10·3% in men and 2·2% in women of type 2 diabetes…

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: 6 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