Diabetes as risk factor for incident coronary heart disease in women compared with men: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 64 cohorts including 858,507 individuals and 28,203 coronary events
Open accessAbstract
Aims/hypothesis A previous pooled analysis suggested that women with diabetes are at substantially increased risk of fatal CHD compared with affected men. Additional findings from several larger and more contemporary studies have since been published on the sex-specific associations between diabetes and incident CHD. We performed an updated systematic review with meta-analysis to provide the most reliable evidence of any sex difference in the effect of diabetes on subsequent risk of CHD.Methods PubMed MEDLINE was systematically searched for prospective population-based cohort studies published between 1 January 1966 and 13 February 2013. Eligible studies had to have reported sex-specific RR estimates for incident CHD associated with diabetes and its associated variability that had been adjusted at least for age. Random-effects meta-analyses with inverse variance weighting were used to obtain sex-specific RRs and the RR ratio (RRR) (women:men) for incident CHD associated with diabetes.Results Data from 64 cohorts, including 858,507 individuals and 28,203 incident CHD events, were included. The RR for incident CHD associated with diabetes compared with no diabetes was 2.82 (95% CI 2.35, 3.38) in women and 2.16 (95% CI 1.82, 2.56) in men. The multiple-adjusted RRR for incident CHD was 44% greater in women with diabetes than in men with diabetes (RRR 1.44 [95% CI 1.27, 1.63]) with no significant heterogeneity between studies (I (2) = 20%).Conclusions/interpretation Women with diabetes have more than a 40% greater risk of incident CHD compared with men with diabetes. Sex disparities in pharmacotherapy are unlikely to explain much of the excess risk in women, but future studies are warranted to more clearly elucidate the mechanisms responsible for the substantial sex difference in diabetes-related risk of CHD.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The increase in relative risk of CVD due to type 2 diabetes is greater in women than in men.
“In fact, the increase in relative risk of CVD due to type 2 diabetes is greater in women than in men (284 -286).”
From Management of Hyperglycemia in Type 2 Diabetes, 2022. A Consensus Report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) (2022) · cites this paper as [285]
The Results report a greater diabetes-associated relative risk of incident coronary heart disease in women than in men, and the Discussion describes this as evidence of greater relative cardiovascular risk in women. However, the analysis does not establish the finding specifically for type 2 diabetes; its reported estimates are for diabetes without that distinction. Page numbers are not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe two-hour post-load glucose level is more strongly associated with CAD risk than the fasting level in subjects with impaired glucose tolerance.
“The two hours glucose level post glucose load was more strongly associated with the risk for CAD than the fasting level in subjects with IGT147, 148).”
From Japan Atherosclerosis Society (JAS) guidelines for prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases 2017 (2018) · cites this paper as [148]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 62 · Cited by 701
- Authors
- Peters, S. A. E., Huxley, R. R., & Woodward, M.
- Affiliations
- University Medical Center Utrecht (NL)
- The University of Sydney (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Huxley, Rachel R.
- Venue
- Diabetologia
- Published
- 2014-05-25
- Volume
- 57
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1542-1551
- ISSN
- 0012-186X (ISSN-L)
- 1432-0428
- OpenAlex
- W2165280863
- Cited by
- 701
- References
- 62
- Citations by year
- 2026: 46 · 2025: 57 · 2024: 73 · 2023: 72 · 2022: 68 · 2021: 65 · 2020: 73 · 2019: 67 · 2018: 54 · 2017: 39 · 2016: 44 · 2015: 32 · 2014: 11
- FWCI
- 6.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Diabetologia (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Own your potential (DEAKIN) (submittedVersion)
- eSpace (Curtin University) (submittedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Sex and Gender in Healthcare
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
- Keywords
- diabetes mellitus, coronary artery disease, sex differences, women, incident cardiovascular events, cardiovascular risk
- MeSH terms
- Coronary Disease, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Humans, Male, Risk Factors, Sex Factors, Incidence
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review