Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 353

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 67 of the 67 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Ambient air pollution and diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Yang, Bo-Yi, Fan, Shujun, Thiering, Elisabeth, Seissler, Jochen, Nowak, Dennis, Dong, Guang-Hui, Heinrich, Joachim·2020·Environmental Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND Air pollutants are suggested to be related to type 2 diabetes (T2D). Since several high quality papers on air pollutants and T2D have been published beyond the last reviews, an extended systematic review is highly warranted. We review epidemiological studies to quantify the association between air pollutants and T2D, and to answer if diabetes patients are more vulnerable to air pollutants. METHODS We systematically reviewed the databases of PubMed and Web of Science based on the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA). We calculated odds ratios (OR) or hazard ratios (HR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) to assess the strength of the associations between air pollutants [e.g., particulate matter with diameter ≤ 2.5 μm (PM2.5), particulate matter with diameter ≤ 10 μm (PM10), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2)] and T2D. We evaluated the quality and risk of bias of the included studies and graded the credibility of the pooled evidence using several recommended tools. We also performed sensitivity analysis, meta-regression analysis, and publication bias test. RESULTS Out of 716 articles identified, 86 were used for this review and meta-analysis. Meta-analyses showed significant associations of PM2.5 with T2D incidence (11 studies; HR = 1.10, 95% CI = 1.04-1.17 per 10 μg/m3 increment; I2 = 74.4%) and prevalence (11 studies; OR = 1.08; 95% CI = 1.04-1.12 per 10 μg/m3 increment; I2 = 84.3%), of PM10 with T2D prevalence (6 studies; OR = 1.10; 95% CI = 1.03-1.17 per 10 μg/m3 increment; I2 = 89.5%) and incidence (6 studies; HR = 1.11; 95% CI = 1.00-1.22 per μg/m3 increment; I2 = 70.6%), and of NO2 with T2D prevalence (11 studies; OR = 1.07; 95% CI = 1.04-1.11 per 10 μg/m3 increment; I2 = 91.1%). The majority of studies on glucose-homoeostasis markers also showed increased risks with higher air pollutants levels, but the studies were too heterogeneous for meta-analysis. Overall, patients with diabetes might be more vulnerable to PM. CONCLUSIONS Recent publications strengthened the evidence for adverse effects of ambient air pollutants exposure (especially for PM) on T2D and that diabetic patients might be more vulnerable to air pollutants exposure.

Overview

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.envres.2019.108817

Cites

67 of 67 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 67 references

Cited by

See all 353

Metadata

Authors
Yang, B.-Y., Fan, S., Thiering, E., Seissler, J., Nowak, D., Dong, G.-H., & Heinrich, J.
Venue
Environmental Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-01
Volume
180
Pages
108817
ISSN
0013-9351 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2979842925
Cited by
353
References
67
FWCI
4.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Ambient air pollution and diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.envres.2019.108817
The paper
Yang, B.-Y., Fan, S., Thiering, E., Seissler, J., Nowak, D., Dong, G.-H., & Heinrich, J. (2020). Ambient air pollution and diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Environmental Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2019.108817

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.