Cited by 481Liver Disease Diagnosis and TreatmentDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsAlcohol Consumption and Health Effects

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and risk of incident diabetes mellitus: an updated meta-analysis of 501 022 adult individuals

Open access
Mantovani, Alessandro, Petracca, Graziana, Beatrice, Giorgia, Tilg, Herbert, Byrne, Christopher D, Targher, Giovanni·2021·Gut

Abstract

Objective Follow-up studies have shown that non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is associated with an increased risk of incident diabetes, but currently, it is uncertain whether this risk changes with increasing severity of NAFLD. We performed a meta-analysis of relevant studies to quantify the magnitude of the association between NAFLD and risk of incident diabetes. Design We systematically searched PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science databases from January 2000 to June 2020 using predefined keywords to identify observational studies with a follow-up duration of at least 1 year, in which NAFLD was diagnosed by imaging techniques or biopsy. Meta-analysis was performed using random-effects modelling. Results 33 studies with 501 022 individuals (30.8% with NAFLD) and 27 953 cases of incident diabetes over a median of 5 years (IQR: 4.0–19 years) were included. Patients with NAFLD had a higher risk of incident diabetes than those without NAFLD (n=26 studies; random-effects HR 2.19, 95% CI 1.93 to 2.48; I 2 =91.2%). Patients with more ‘severe’ NAFLD were also more likely to develop incident diabetes (n=9 studies; random-effects HR 2.69, 95% CI 2.08 to 3.49; I 2 =69%). This risk markedly increased across the severity of liver fibrosis (n=5 studies; random-effects HR 3.42, 95% CI 2.29 to 5.11; I 2 =44.6%). All risks were independent of age, sex, adiposity measures and other common metabolic risk factors. Sensitivity analyses did not alter these findings. Funnel plots did not reveal any significant publication bias. Conclusion This updated meta-analysis shows that NAFLD is associated with a ~2.2-fold increased risk of incident diabetes. This risk parallels the underlying severity of NAFLD.

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 · 10.1136/gutjnl-2020-322572

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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 presence of MASLD is associated with a more than two-fold increased risk of an incident diagnosis of T2D, and this risk is increased with more advanced stages of MASLD.

    “The presence of MASLD is associated with a more than two-fold increased risk of an incident diagnosis of T2D, and this risk is increased with more advanced stages of MASLD. 218”

    From EASL-EASD-EASO Clinical Practice Guidelines on the management of metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD). (2024) · cites this paper as [218]

    The Discussion (page not available in our copy) reports a 2.19 hazard ratio for incident diabetes with NAFLD and says the risk increases with disease severity, especially fibrosis. The cited analysis studied NAFLD, not MASLD; our copy does not establish that the same estimates apply specifically to MASLD. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA. 2000;283:2008-2012.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mantovani, A., Petracca, G., Beatrice, G., Tilg, H., Byrne, C. D., & Targher, G.
Affiliations
  • University of Verona (IT)
  • Innsbruck Medical University (AT)
  • University of Southampton (GB)
Corresponding author
Targher, Giovanni
Venue
Gut
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2020-09-16
Volume
70
Issue
5
Pages
962-969
ISSN
  • 0017-5749 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-3288
OpenAlex
W3084528742
Cited by
481
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 56 · 2025: 89 · 2024: 95 · 2023: 90 · 2022: 72 · 2021: 74 · 2020: 5
FWCI
8.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Gut (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Liver Disease Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Alcohol Consumption and Health Effects
Keywords
non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, new-onset diabetes, NAFLD severity, liver fibrosis, diabetes risk, metabolic risk factors, adiposity
MeSH terms
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Humans, Risk Factors, Severity of Illness Index, Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease

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