Cited by 824Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsObesity, Physical Activity, DietCancer Risks and Factors

The magnitude of association between overweight and obesity and the risk of diabetes: A meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies

Abdullah, Asnawi, Peeters, Anna, de Courten, Maximilian, Stoelwinder, Johannes·2010·Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice

Abstract

The objectives of this meta-analysis were to examine the magnitude of the relative risk (RR) of developing type 2 diabetes for overweight and obese populations, compared to those with normal weight, and to determine causes of the variation in RR between various cohort studies. The magnitude of the RR was analyzed by combining 18 prospective cohort studies that matched defined criteria. The variance in RR between studies was explored. The overall RR of diabetes for obese persons compared to those with normal weight was 7.19, 95% CI: 5.74, 9.00 and for overweight was 2.99, 95% CI: 2.42, 3.72. The variation in RR among studies was explored and it was found that the effect of heterogeneity was highly related with sample size, method of assessment of body mass index (BMI) and method of ascertainment of type 2 diabetes. By combining only cohort studies with more than 400 cases of incident diabetes (>median), adjusted by at least three main confounding variables (age, family history of type 2 diabetes, physical activity), measured BMI, and diabetes determined by clinical diagnosis, the RR was 7.28, 95% CI: 6.47, 8.28 for obesity and 2.92, 95% CI: 2.57, 3.32 for overweight.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.diabres.2010.04.012

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Abdullah, A., Peeters, A., de Courten, M., & Stoelwinder, J.
Affiliations
  • Universitas Muhammadiyah Aceh (ID)
  • Monash University (AU)
Corresponding author
Abdullah, Asnawi
Venue
Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-09
Volume
89
Issue
3
Pages
309-319
ISSN
0168-8227 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2089490997
Cited by
824
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 45 · 2025: 73 · 2024: 76 · 2023: 87 · 2022: 76 · 2021: 87 · 2020: 70 · 2019: 48 · 2018: 49 · 2017: 47 · 2016: 40 · 2015: 40 · 2014: 34 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 24
FWCI
2.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Victoria University Research Repository (Victoria University) (submittedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Australian Agency for International Development
  • Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Obesity, Physical Activity, Diet
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer Risks and Factors
Keywords
type 2 diabetes, obesity, overweight, body mass index, relative risk, new-onset diabetes, study heterogeneity, sample size, confounding, physical activity, family history of diabetes
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Obesity, Prospective Studies, Body Mass Index, Overweight, Young Adult

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