Cited by 161Dietary Effects on HealthNutritional Studies and DietNutrition, Health and Food Behavior

Breakfast Skipping Is Associated with Increased Risk of Type 2 Diabetes among Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies

Open access
Ballon, Aurélie, Neuenschwander, Manuela, Schlesinger, Sabrina·2019·The Journal of Nutrition

Abstract

Background Epidemiologic studies have indicated that breakfast skipping is associated with risk of type 2 diabetes. However, the shape of the dose-response relation and the influence of adiposity on this association have not been reported. Objective We investigated the association between breakfast skipping and risk of type 2 diabetes by considering the influence of the body mass index (BMI). Methods In this systematic review and meta-analysis, PubMed and Web of Science were searched up to August 2017. Prospective cohort studies on breakfast skipping and risk of type 2 diabetes in adults were included. Summary RRs and 95% CIs, without and with adjustment for BMI, were estimated with the use of a random-effects model in pairwise and dose-response meta-analyses. Results In total 6 studies, based on 96,175 participants and 4935 cases, were included. The summary RR for type 2 diabetes comparing ever with never skipping breakfast was 1.33 (95% CI: 1.22, 1.46, n = 6 studies) without adjustment for BMI, and 1.22 (95% CI: 1.12, 1.34, n = 4 studies) after adjustment for BMI. Nonlinear dose-response meta-analysis indicated that risk of type 2 diabetes increased with every additional day of breakfast skipping, but the curve reached a plateau at 4-5 d/wk, showing an increased risk of 55% (summary RR: 1.55; 95% CI: 1.41, 1.71). No further increase in risk of type 2 diabetes was observed after 5 d of breakfast skipping/wk (P for nonlinearity = 0.08). Conclusions This meta-analysis provides…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/jn/nxy194

Cites

61 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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
Ballon, A., Neuenschwander, M., & Schlesinger, S.
Affiliations
Deutsches Diabetes-Zentrum e.V. (DE)
Corresponding author
Schlesinger, Sabrina
Venue
The Journal of Nutrition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-01
Volume
149
Issue
1
Pages
106-113
ISSN
0022-3166 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2900067196
Cited by
161
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 1
FWCI
1.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Nutrition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Rovira & Virgili repository (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • German Federal Ministry of Health
  • Ministry of Innovation, Science, Research and Technology
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Dietary Effects on Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Nutritional Studies and Diet
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Nutrition, Health and Food Behavior
Keywords
breakfast skipping, type 2 diabetes, body mass index, adiposity, dose-response relationship, dietary habits, diabetes risk, adults
MeSH terms
Adult, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Feeding Behavior, Humans, Risk Factors, Breakfast

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