SynthesisPloS one2026
HbA1c and pulmonary function in type 2 diabetes mellitus: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe lung, although not traditionally been considered a target organ in diabetes, may undergo microvascular and connective tissue changes that are related to poor glycemic control. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to systematically evaluate and quantify the association between HbA1c values and pulmonary function in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus.
methodsA systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Studies were searched in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection from database inception to 25 December 2025. Eligible studies compared spirometric outcomes between adults with type 2 diabetes categorized as having good versus poor glycemic control based on HbA1c. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted using mean differences.
resultsIndividuals with poor glycemic control had significantly lower absolute spirometric volumes. FEV1 was lower in the poor HbA1c group, with a pooled mean difference of -0.16 L (95% CI -0.25 to -0.07; p < 0.001). Similarly, FVC was reduced, with a pooled mean difference of -0.24 L (95% CI -0.35 to -0.14; p < 0.001). In contrast, the FEV1/FVC ratio was slightly higher in the poor-control group (MD = 1.61 percentage points, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.73; p = 0.005). All pooled analyses showed no evidence of statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 0%).
conclusionPoor glycemic control in T2DM is associated with lower absolute FEV1 and FVC. The preserved or slightly higher FEV1/FVC ratio suggests reduced spirometric volumes rather than definite obstructive impairment. These findings should be interpreted as group-level associations because the analyses were based on absolute spirometric values and observational studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.