Clinical and experimental dermatology · 2019
Hidradenitis suppurativa and diabetes mellitus: updated systematic review and adjusted meta-analysis.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Phan K, Charlton O, Smith S D
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a debilitating and distressing chronic inflammatory skin disease. There is also evolving evidence supporting the association between HS and cardiovascular risk factors, including smoking, obesity, hyperlipidaemia and metabolic syndrome. Notably, these are clinical features and risk factors that are closely associated with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM).
AIMS: We performed a pooled adjusted meta-analysis of comparative studies to investigate the relationship between HS and DM.
METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed according to recommended Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. OR was used as the summary effect size.
RESULTS: From pooled analysis of unadjusted data from 12 studies, we found a significantly higher proportion of DM in HS cases compared with non-HS healthy controls (16.1% vs. 15.7%; OR = 2.17; 95% CI 1.85-2.55; P < 0.001). Adjusted effect sizes from five studies were also pooled. A significantly higher proportion of DM was found for HS compared with healthy controls, although the effect size was attenuated compared with unadjusted analyses (OR 1.69; 95% CI 1.50-1.91; P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, our systematic review and meta-analysis is the first to pool adjusted effect sizes. We found that HS was associated with a 1.69-fold increased odds of diabetes; however, the absolute risk difference was small (16.1% vs. 15.7%) and is probably not clinically relevant. Treating clinicians should be aware of this association, but there may not be an urgent need to perform screening for impaired glucose tolerance or diabetes.
AIMS: We performed a pooled adjusted meta-analysis of comparative studies to investigate the relationship between HS and DM.
METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed according to recommended Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. OR was used as the summary effect size.
RESULTS: From pooled analysis of unadjusted data from 12 studies, we found a significantly higher proportion of DM in HS cases compared with non-HS healthy controls (16.1% vs. 15.7%; OR = 2.17; 95% CI 1.85-2.55; P < 0.001). Adjusted effect sizes from five studies were also pooled. A significantly higher proportion of DM was found for HS compared with healthy controls, although the effect size was attenuated compared with unadjusted analyses (OR 1.69; 95% CI 1.50-1.91; P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, our systematic review and meta-analysis is the first to pool adjusted effect sizes. We found that HS was associated with a 1.69-fold increased odds of diabetes; however, the absolute risk difference was small (16.1% vs. 15.7%) and is probably not clinically relevant. Treating clinicians should be aware of this association, but there may not be an urgent need to perform screening for impaired glucose tolerance or diabetes.