Meta-analysiscited by the Tayebat archiveabstract only checked A-EGG-14 standard review

Eggs and type 2 diabetes: meta-analysis

Egg consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of prospective studies.

Overview

Djoussé L et al.. Am J Clin Nutr 2016 · PMID 26739035 · DOI 10.3945/ajcn.115.119933

No overall link; higher risk only in US studies.

Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: moderate

Study explained simply

What did the researchers want to find out?: Is egg consumption associated with risk of type 2 diabetes?
How was the study done?: Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies with dose-response analysis
How many people, animals or samples were studied?: 219,979 subjects; 8,911 cases; 12 cohorts
What was actually found?: Highest vs lowest: RR 1.09 (0.99-1.20) fixed, 1.06 (0.86-1.30) random; I2 73.6%. US studies: 39% higher risk (21%-60%); non-US: RR 0.89 (0.79-1.02).
How large was the observed effect?: Fixed and random effects; cubic splines
What do the results mean in everyday life?: Outside the US, eggs were not linked to diabetes.
What are the study's limitations?: High heterogeneity; Observational primary studies
What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?: Mostly contradicts the archive claim.
Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?: Non-US studies show no risk.
What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?: Cannot explain the US difference.

Is egg consumption associated with risk of type 2 diabetes?

Study design: Meta-analysis – Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies with dose-response analysis
Population: 12 cohorts
Country: Multinational (US and non-US)
Period: Search to October 2015
Sample size: 219,979 subjects; 8,911 cases
Inclusion and exclusion criteria: Prospective cohorts

Results: Highest vs lowest: RR 1.09 (0.99-1.20) fixed, 1.06 (0.86-1.30) random; I2 73.6%. US studies: 39% higher risk (21%-60%); non-US: RR 0.89 (0.79-1.02).
Absolute risks: not reported
Authors' conclusion: No relation between infrequent egg intake and DM; modest risk with >=3 eggs/week restricted to US studies.

Overall null; regional heterogeneity.

I-EGG-08 confirms pattern.

Non-US studies show no risk.

Cited in a way that ignores its main conclusion.

Multidimensional assessment
Multidimensional assessment
Authenticity of the source	verified
Methodological quality	moderate
Risk of bias	some concerns
Precision of results	moderate
Directness	direct
Reproducibility	replicated
Consistency with the overall evidence	mixed
Regional transferability	moderate
Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive)	taken out of context

Reasons for US-specific association.

Note: according to the archive, the studies were compiled by the archive operators. Whether Dr. Elawady himself cited this study is not established.

What the archive says about the study: Listed in bibliography; the summary says epidemiological signals link eggs to type 2 diabetes.
A. What was actually studied?: Egg intake and diabetes.
B. What did the authors find?: No overall association; US-only signal.
C. What conclusions do the authors themselves draw?: No relation with infrequent intake; US-restricted signal at >=3 eggs/week.
D. What does the archive derive from it?: Used to support "eggs linked to diabetes".
E. Is this derivation scientifically justified?: Out of context: the source mainly shows no overall association.
Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive): taken out of context