Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26109502›Full record

ArticleDiabetes care2015

Mismatch of Sleep and Work Timing and Risk of Type 2 Diabetes.

Céline Vetter, Elizabeth E Devore, Cody A Ramin, Frank E Speizer, Walter C Willett, Eva S Schernhammer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diabetes care, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 100 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
100citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

100 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Efficacy and Adherence to a Supervised Aerobic Exercise Training Intervention in Night-Shift Hospital Nurses: A Randomized Controlled Trial.FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology · 2026
    Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Modified Cortisol Circadian Rhythm: The Hidden Toll of Night-Shift Work.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Review

40 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Céline VetterChanning Division of Network Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA celine.vetter@channing.harvard.edu.
Elizabeth E DevoreChanning Division of Network Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Cody A RaminDepartment of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD.
Frank E SpeizerChanning Division of Network Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA Department of Environmental Health, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA.
Walter C WillettDepartment of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA Department of Nutrition, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA.
Eva S SchernhammerChanning Division of Network Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA.

Funding

Minimizing Cancer Risk in Shift WorkersR01OH009803 · OH · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI SCHERNHAMMER, EVA S · 2010 to 2018
$4.5M
NIOSH CDC HHS 5R01OH009803NIOSH CDC HHS R01 OH009803
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo examine whether a mismatch between chronotype (i.e., preferred sleep timing) and work schedule is associated with type 2 diabetes risk. RESEARCH DESIGN AND

methodsIn the Nurses' Health Study 2, we followed 64,615 women from 2005 to 2011. Newly developed type 2 diabetes was the outcome measure (n = 1,452). A question on diurnal preference ascertained chronotype in 2009; rotating night shift work exposure was assessed regularly since 1989.

resultsCompared with intermediate chronotypes, early chronotypes had a slightly decreased diabetes risk after multivariable adjustment (odds ratio 0.87 [95% CI 0.77-0.98]), whereas no significant association was observed for late chronotypes (1.04 [0.89-1.21]). Among early chronotypes, risk of type 2 diabetes was modestly reduced when working daytime schedules (0.81 [0.63-1.04]) and remained similarly reduced in women working <10 years of rotating night shifts (0.84 [0.72-0.98]). After ≥10 years of shift work exposure, early chronotypes had a nonsignificant elevated diabetes risk (1.15 [0.81-1.63], Ptrend = 0.014). By contrast, among late chronotypes, the significantly increased diabetes risk observed among day workers (1.51 [1.13-2.02]) appeared largely attenuated if their work schedules included night shifts (<10 years: 0.93 [0.76-1.13]; ≥10 years: 0.87 [0.56-1.34]; Ptrend = 0.14). The interaction between chronotype and shift work exposure was significant (Pinteraction = 0.0004). Analyses restricting to incident cases revealed similar patterns.

conclusionsIn early chronotypes, type 2 diabetes risk increased with increasing duration of shift work exposure, whereas late types had the highest diabetes risk working daytime schedules. These data add to the growing body of evidence that workers could benefit from shift schedules minimizing interference with chronotype-dependent sleep timing.

Indexed as

Circadian RhythmWakefulnessWork Schedule ToleranceAdultDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2FemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMiddle AgedOccupational DiseasesOccupational HealthOdds RatioRisk FactorsSleep Wake Disorders

Identifiers

PMID26109502
PMCPMC4542269

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.