↓ Skip to main content

PLOS

Differential White Blood Cell Count and Type 2 Diabetes: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cross-Sectional and Prospective Studies

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, October 2010
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
123 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
183 Mendeley
Title
Differential White Blood Cell Count and Type 2 Diabetes: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cross-Sectional and Prospective Studies
Published in
PLOS ONE, October 2010
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0013405
Pubmed ID
Authors

Effrossyni Gkrania-Klotsas, Zheng Ye, Andrew J. Cooper, Stephen J. Sharp, Robert Luben, Mary L. Biggs, Liang-Kung Chen, Kuppan Gokulakrishnan, Markolf Hanefeld, Erik Ingelsson, Wen-An Lai, Shih-Yi Lin, Lars Lind, Vitool Lohsoonthorn, Viswanathan Mohan, Antonio Muscari, Goran Nilsson, John Ohrvik, Jiang Chao Qiang, Nancy Swords Jenny, Koji Tamakoshi, Theodora Temelkova-Kurktschiev, Ya-Yu Wang, Chittaranjan Sakerlal Yajnik, Marco Zoli, Kay-Tee Khaw, Nita G. Forouhi, Nicholas J. Wareham, Claudia Langenberg

Abstract

Biological evidence suggests that inflammation might induce type 2 diabetes (T2D), and epidemiological studies have shown an association between higher white blood cell count (WBC) and T2D. However, the association has not been systematically investigated. Studies were identified through computer-based and manual searches. Previously unreported studies were sought through correspondence. 20 studies were identified (8,647 T2D cases and 85,040 non-cases). Estimates of the association of WBC with T2D were combined using random effects meta-analysis; sources of heterogeneity as well as presence of publication bias were explored. The combined relative risk (RR) comparing the top to bottom tertile of the WBC count was 1.61 (95% CI: 1.45; 1.79, p = 1.5*10(-18)). Substantial heterogeneity was present (I(2) = 83%). For granulocytes the RR was 1.38 (95% CI: 1.17; 1.64, p = 1.5*10(-4)), for lymphocytes 1.26 (95% CI: 1.02; 1.56, p = 0.029), and for monocytes 0.93 (95% CI: 0.68; 1.28, p = 0.67) comparing top to bottom tertile. In cross-sectional studies, RR was 1.74 (95% CI: 1.49; 2.02, p = 7.7*10(-13)), while in cohort studies it was 1.48 (95% CI: 1.22; 1.79, p = 7.7*10(-5)). We assessed the impact of confounding in EPIC-Norfolk study and found that the age and sex adjusted HR of 2.19 (95% CI: 1.74; 2.75) was attenuated to 1.82 (95% CI: 1.45; 2.29) after further accounting for smoking, T2D family history, physical activity, education, BMI and waist circumference. A raised WBC is associated with higher risk of T2D. The presence of publication bias and failure to control for all potential confounders in all studies means the observed association is likely an overestimate.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 183 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 179 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 33 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 13%
Student > Master 19 10%
Student > Bachelor 17 9%
Lecturer 9 5%
Other 35 19%
Unknown 46 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 23%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 20 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 19 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 6%
Social Sciences 6 3%
Other 32 17%
Unknown 53 29%