Results
32
Figure 7. Meta-analysis showing the difference in carotid artery intima media thickness
(IMT) between type 2 diabetes and controls (upper panel), and between patients with
impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) and controls (lower panel). Means and 95% confidence
intervals for the differences in separate studies and the summary of all studies are given.
Folsom ( 13) Hedblad (14) Wagenknec ht (15) Ishizaka (16) Wei (17) Henry (18) Taniwaki (19) El-Barghouti (20) Yamasaki (21) Sigurdardottir (22) Mohan (23) Geroulakos (26) Niskanen ( 25) Tuomilehto (27) Temel kova-K (28) Guvener (29) Bonora (30) Rajala (24) Puija (31) Visona (32) Keven (33) All 0.059 0.048 – 0.071 0.078 0.054 – 0.102 0.101 0.073 – 0.128 0.060 0.009 – 0.111 0.057 0.033 – 0.080 0.050 0.022 – 0.078 0.364 0.315 – 0.413 0.014 -0. 025 – 0.054 0.414 0.360 – 0.468 0.093 0.048 – 0.138 0.210 0.152 – 0.268 0.170 0.117 – 0.223 0.142 0.057 – 0.228 -0.080 -0.427 – 0.267 0.130 0.059 – 0.201 0.180 0.116 – 0.244 0.250 0.195 – 0.305 0.090 -0. 010 – 0.190 0.073 0.035 – 0.111 0.040 -0. 010 – 0.089 0.220 0.133 – 0.307 0.134 0.123 – 0.144 10581 5594 1079 904 867 579 556 484 294 262 243 194 182 144 142 122 114 111 108 87 41 22688
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
-0.1
-0.2
Diff erence in carotid artery IMT, mm (95% CI)
Control
IMT thicker
Diabetes
IMT thicker
Mean 95% CI Number StudyCarotid Artery IMT in Diabetes vs Controls
Ishizaka (16) Wagenknecht (15) Henry (18) Temelkov a-K (28) Rajala (24) Tuomilehto (27) Niskanen (25) Snehalatha (35) Kev en (33) All 0.040 -0.019 – 0.099 0.050 0.023 – 0.077 0.050 0.019 – 0.081 0.070 0.026 – 0.114 0.020 -0.056 – 0.096 -0.030 -0.47 – 0.410 0.031 -0.133 – 0.196 0.043 -0.034 – 0.120 0.070 -0.017 – 0.157 0.042 0.014 – 0.071 1072 948 446 347 154 125 119 99 41 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 -0.1 -0.2
Diff erence in carotid artery IMT, mm (95% CI)
Carotid Artery IMT in Impaired Glucose Tolerance (IGT) vs Controls
Control IMT thicker Diabetes IMT thicker Mean 95% CI Number Study
