Guo-Chong Chen1,2, Meng-Meng Liu3, Li-Hua Chen1, Jia-Ying Xu4, Khemayanto Hidayat1, Fu-Rong Li5, Li-Qiang Qin6,7. 1. Department of Nutrition and Food Hygiene, School of Public Health, Soochow University, 199 Ren'ai Road, Suzhou, 215123, China. 2. Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore. 3. Suzhou Center for Disease Prevention and Control, Suzhou, China. 4. Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Radiation Biology, School of Radiation Medicine and Protection, Soochow University, Suzhou, China. 5. Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China. 6. Department of Nutrition and Food Hygiene, School of Public Health, Soochow University, 199 Ren'ai Road, Suzhou, 215123, China. qinliqiang@suda.edu.cn. 7. Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Preventive and Translational Medicine for Geriatric Disease, Soochow University, Suzhou, China. qinliqiang@suda.edu.cn.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Prospective studies reported inconsistent findings on the relationship between daytime napping and risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D). Categorized and dose-response meta-analyses were performed to quantify this relation. METHODS: Potentially eligible studies were identified by searching PubMed and Embase databases. Dose-response effects were assessed by the generalized least squares trend estimation and study-specific summary relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed with a random-effects model. RESULTS: Seven prospective studies including one US, four European, and two Chinese cohorts involving 249,077 participants and 13,237 cases of T2D were included. The overall analyses showed a 17% increased risk of T2D when comparing habitual nappers with non-nappers (RR = 1.17, 95% CI 1.08-1.27). By region, the summary RR was 1.21 (95% CI 1.17-1.26), 1.15 (95% CI 1.03-1.30) and 1.23 (95% CI 0.87-1.73) for the US, European, and Chinese studies, respectively. Limiting to five studies that excluded subjects with known major chronic disorders yielded a summary RR of 1.16 (95% CI 1.03-1.30). A dose-response analysis suggested an 11% (95% CI 7-16%) increased T2D risk for each increment in daytime napping of 30 min/day and, despite no evidence for nonlinearity (P nonlinearity = 0.65), the increased risk of T2D for short nap (<50 min/day) was dominated by the US study. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis suggests that daytime napping is associated with an increased risk of T2D. Given the limited number of cohorts and inconsistency in terms of methodological and population characteristics across these cohorts, residual confounders and/or reverse causality cannot be fully addressed, and our findings should be interpreted with great caution. Future well-designed prospective studies are still warranted.
PURPOSE: Prospective studies reported inconsistent findings on the relationship between daytime napping and risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D). Categorized and dose-response meta-analyses were performed to quantify this relation. METHODS: Potentially eligible studies were identified by searching PubMed and Embase databases. Dose-response effects were assessed by the generalized least squares trend estimation and study-specific summary relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed with a random-effects model. RESULTS: Seven prospective studies including one US, four European, and two Chinese cohorts involving 249,077 participants and 13,237 cases of T2D were included. The overall analyses showed a 17% increased risk of T2D when comparing habitual nappers with non-nappers (RR = 1.17, 95% CI 1.08-1.27). By region, the summary RR was 1.21 (95% CI 1.17-1.26), 1.15 (95% CI 1.03-1.30) and 1.23 (95% CI 0.87-1.73) for the US, European, and Chinese studies, respectively. Limiting to five studies that excluded subjects with known major chronic disorders yielded a summary RR of 1.16 (95% CI 1.03-1.30). A dose-response analysis suggested an 11% (95% CI 7-16%) increased T2D risk for each increment in daytime napping of 30 min/day and, despite no evidence for nonlinearity (P nonlinearity = 0.65), the increased risk of T2D for short nap (<50 min/day) was dominated by the US study. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis suggests that daytime napping is associated with an increased risk of T2D. Given the limited number of cohorts and inconsistency in terms of methodological and population characteristics across these cohorts, residual confounders and/or reverse causality cannot be fully addressed, and our findings should be interpreted with great caution. Future well-designed prospective studies are still warranted.
Entities:
Keywords:
Meta-analysis; Napping; Sleep; Type 2 diabetes
Authors: A N Vgontzas; S Pejovic; E Zoumakis; H M Lin; E O Bixler; M Basta; J Fang; A Sarrigiannidis; G P Chrousos Journal: Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab Date: 2006-08-29 Impact factor: 4.310
Authors: Jaana Lindström; Pirjo Ilanne-Parikka; Markku Peltonen; Sirkka Aunola; Johan G Eriksson; Katri Hemiö; Helena Hämäläinen; Pirjo Härkönen; Sirkka Keinänen-Kiukaanniemi; Mauri Laakso; Anne Louheranta; Marjo Mannelin; Merja Paturi; Jouko Sundvall; Timo T Valle; Matti Uusitupa; Jaakko Tuomilehto Journal: Lancet Date: 2006-11-11 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Jennifer L Picarsic; Nancy W Glynn; Christopher A Taylor; Jeffrey A Katula; Suzanne E Goldman; Stephanie A Studenski; Anne B Newman Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2008-07-24 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Yue Leng; Sara Ahmadi-Abhari; Nick W J Wainwright; Francesco P Cappuccio; Paul G Surtees; Robert Luben; Carol Brayne; Kay-Tee Khaw Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2014-11-11 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Ketrell L McWhorter; Yong-Moon Park; Symielle A Gaston; Kacey B Fang; Dale P Sandler; Chandra L Jackson Journal: BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care Date: 2019-09-20
Authors: Jing Yi Xiao; Wei Sen Zhang; Chao Qiang Jiang; Ya Li Jin; Feng Zhu; Kar Keung Cheng; Tai Hing Lam; Lin Xu Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2022-01-10 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Jun He; Feiyun Ouyang; Dan Qiu; Yanying Duan; Dan Luo; Shuiyuan Xiao Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-06-15 Impact factor: 3.390