Anothaisintawee · Sleep medicine reviews 2016 · systematic review and meta-analysis · n=36 studies (1,061,555 participants)

Sleep disturbances compared to traditional risk factors for diabetes development: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Cited 637 times in the scientific literature.

Level 1 - systematic review of randomized trials

Systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies

PubMed 26687279 · doi:10.1016/j.smrv.2015.10.002 · record verified 2026-08-30

What was done

A systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis of cohort studies from Medline and Scopus evaluating associations between sleep disturbances and incident diabetes. Exposures included short duration (≤5 h, 6 h/d), long duration (≥9 h/d), poor sleep quality, obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), and shift work across 36 studies with 1,061,555 participants. Pooled relative risks were compared to effect sizes from existing systematic reviews of traditional risk factors (overweight, family history, and physical inactivity).

What was found

Sleep disturbances significantly increased incident diabetes risk: - Sleeping ≤5 h/d: RR 1.48 (95% CI: 1.25, 1.76) - Sleeping 6 h/d: RR 1.18 (95% CI: 1.10, 1.26) - Sleeping ≥9 h/d: RR 1.36 (95% CI: 1.12, 1.65) - Poor sleep quality: RR 1.40 (95% CI: 1.21, 1.63) - Obstructive sleep apnea: RR 2.02 (95% CI: 1.57, 2.61) - Shift work: RR 1.40 (95% CI: 1.18, 1.66) Traditional risk factors showed pooled RRs of 2.99 (95% CI: 2.42, 3.72) for overweight, 2.33 (95% CI: 1.79, 2.79) for family history, and 1.20 (95% CI: 1.11, 1.32) for physical inactivity.

Why it matters

The elevated diabetes risk associated with sleep disturbances is comparable in magnitude to physical inactivity. These findings suggest sleep evaluations should be incorporated into routine type 2 diabetes screening and prevention guidelines.

Limits

The underlying studies were observational cohorts, limiting causal inference and leaving potential for residual confounding from diet, socioeconomic status, or underlying comorbidities. The abstract does not specify whether sleep variables were objectively measured or self-reported. Traditional risk factor comparisons relied on separate external systematic reviews rather than direct head-to-head adjustments within the same cohorts.

Cited by