Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28878172›Full record

SynthesisNutrients2017

Dietary Protein Consumption and the Risk of Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cohort Studies.

Shuang Tian, Qian Xu, Ruyue Jiang, Tianshu Han, Changhao Sun, Lixin Na

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Nutrients, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 95 papers, 15 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
95citing papers in PubMed, 15 pooled it
15.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

95 citing papers in PubMed, 15 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 168 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. No effects of high-The British journal of nutrition · 2025
    Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Article
  20. Article

35 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Shuang TianNutrition Department, Longgang Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shenzhen 518000, Guangdong, China. 18504541023@163.com.
Qian XuNational Discipline, Department of Nutrition and Food Hygiene, School of Public Health Harbin Medical University, Harbin 150081, China. XUQIAN9188@163.com.
Ruyue JiangNational Discipline, Department of Nutrition and Food Hygiene, School of Public Health Harbin Medical University, Harbin 150081, China. jruyue@163.com.
Tianshu HanNational Discipline, Department of Nutrition and Food Hygiene, School of Public Health Harbin Medical University, Harbin 150081, China. snowcalendar@126.com.
Changhao SunNational Discipline, Department of Nutrition and Food Hygiene, School of Public Health Harbin Medical University, Harbin 150081, China. changhaosun2002@163.com.
Lixin NaNational Discipline, Department of Nutrition and Food Hygiene, School of Public Health Harbin Medical University, Harbin 150081, China. nalixin2003@163.com.
Harbin Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recently, some studies have focused on the relationship between dietary protein intake and the risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), but the conclusions have been inconsistent. Therefore, in this paper, a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies regarding protein consumption and T2DM risk are conducted in order to present the association between them. We searched the PubMed and Embase databases for cohort studies on dietary protein, high-protein food consumption and risk of T2DM, up to July 2017. A summary of relative risks was compiled by the fixed-effect model or random-effect model. Eleven cohort studies regarded protein intake and T2DM (52,637 cases among 483,174 participants). The summary RR and 95% CI (Confidence Interval) of T2DM was 1.12 (1.08-1.17) in all subjects, 1.13 (1.04-1.24) in men, and 1.09 (1.04-1.15) in women for total protein;1.14 (1.09-1.19) in all subjects, 1.23 (1.09-1.38) in men, and 1.11 (1.03-1.19) in women for animal protein; 0.96 (0.88-1.06) in all subjects, 0.98 (0.72-1.34) in men, and 0.92 (0.86-0.98) in women for plant protein. We also compared the association between different food sources of protein and the risk of T2DM. The summary RR (Relative Risk) and 95% CI of T2DM was 1.22 (1.09-1.36) for red meat, 1.39 (1.29-1.49) for processed meat, 1.03 (0.89-1.17) for fish, 1.03 (0.64-1.67) for egg, 0.89 (0.84-0.94) for total dairy products, 0.87 (0.78-0.96) for whole milk, 0.83 (0.70-0.98) for yogurt, 0.74 (0.59-0.93) in women for soy. This meta-analysis shows that total protein and animal protein could increase the risk of T2DM in both males and females, and plant protein decreases the risk of T2DM in females. The association between high-protein food types and T2DM are also different. Red meat and processed meat are risk factors of T2DM, and soy, dairy and dairy products are the protective factors of T2DM. Egg and fish intake are not associated with a decreased risk of T2DM. This research indicates the type of dietary protein and food sources of protein that should be considered for the prevention of diabetes.

Indexed as

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2Dietary ProteinsFemaleHumansLinear ModelsMaleOdds RatioProtective FactorsRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsDietary Proteinsdiabetesmeta-analysisproteinsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID28878172
PMCPMC5622742
OpenAlexW2752002135

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.