ReviewDiabetologia2026
Menopause hormone therapy and type 2 diabetes risk and prognosis: systematic review and meta-analyses.
Review in Diabetologia, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aims/hypothesisMenopause hormone therapy (MHT) may have effects on metabolic conditions. This study was conducted to systematically review the literature, to summarise and quantify the effect of MHT on glucose or insulin levels and on new-onset type 2 diabetes among women without type 2 diabetes and to summarise and quantify the effect of MHT on glucose, insulin, lipid and blood pressure levels among women with type 2 diabetes.
methodsData from six electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, CINAHL, PsyclNFO and MEDLINE) from inception to 29 July 2025 were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies comparing MHT users with non-users among postmenopausal women or women undergoing the menopausal transition. Eligible studies reported the effects of MHT on glucose metabolism, lipid levels or blood pressure in women with or without type 2 diabetes. The risk of bias in RCTs and cohort studies was assessed with version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias for randomised trials (RoB 2) tool and the Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool, respectively. Certainty of evidence (CoE) was assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Random-effects models were used to estimate the pooled effects.
resultsIn total, 49 articles (33 reporting on RCTs and 16 on cohort studies) from 15 countries were identified, involving 1,472,277 participants. The study durations ranged from 1 week to 13.2 years for RCTs and from 6 months to 17 years for cohort studies. Seven of these were assessed as having a low risk of bias. Among women without type 2 diabetes, MHT use was associated with small reductions in fasting insulin (11 studies: N=4262, mean difference [MD] -5.90 pmol/l [95% confidence interval (CI) -8.03, -3.77 pmol/l]; high CoE) and in homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance score (four studies: N=2883, MD -0.21 [95% CI -0.32, -0.09]; moderate CoE), as well as a lower risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes (14 studies: N=1,450,134, risk ratio 0.83 [95% CI 0.75, 0.92]; very low CoE], compared with non-MHT users. Among women with type 2 diabetes, MHT was associated with small reductions in fasting plasma glucose (16 studies: N=1379, MD -1.07 mmol/l [95% CI -1.86, -0.28 mmol/l]; very low CoE), haemoglobin A CONCLUSIONS/
interpretationMHT showed small beneficial associations with glucose metabolism among women with and without type 2 diabetes, while the effect size was generally too small to be clinically significant. Future studies are needed to shed more light on the effect of MHT by initiation age. Study limitations include the predominantly single-reviewer screening and assessment, the high risk of bias of the included studies and restricted geographical representation. REGISTRATION: The study protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CRD420251230387).
fundingThis work was supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council investigator grant (APP2009577).
Indexed as
Identifiers
42758305What 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.