ReviewDiabetology & metabolic syndrome2025
Diabetes and tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analyis of mendelian randomization evidence.
Review in Diabetology & metabolic syndrome, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Co-managing the double burden: strategies for simultaneously tackling infectious and non-communicable diseases.Infectious diseases of poverty · 2026Article
- Long-term risk of death after tuberculosis diagnosis and treatment.Nature medicine · 2026Article
- A Year in Review on Tuberculosis and Non-tuberculous Mycobacteria Disease: A 2026 Update for Clinicians and Scientists.Pathogens & immunity · 2026Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTuberculosis (TB) and diabetes mellitus (DM) are global health challenges, each imposing significant morbidity and mortality. Observational studies suggest an increased TB risk in individuals with DM, yet causal relationships remain unclear due to potential confounding factors. Mendelian randomization (MR) offers a method to assess causality by leveraging genetic variants as instrumental variables, mitigating biases from confounding and reverse causation. This systematic review aimed to consolidate existing MR evidence on the causal link between DM (types 1 and 2) and TB.
methodsA comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, and Web of Science, identifying MR studies investigating the causal association between DM and TB. Studies were screened based on pre-specified inclusion criteria and assessed for quality using the STROBE-MR guidelines. Data extraction focused on study characteristics, MR methodology, and causal effect estimates. A meta-analysis was conducted estimate the pooled odds ratios for association between T2DM and TB.
resultsFour MR studies met the inclusion criteria, spanning East Asian and European populations. Findings indicated a consistent causal relationship between DM (particularly type 2 diabetes) and increased TB risk, with odds ratios (OR) ranging from 1.07 to 1.24 (p < 0.05). The pooled odds ratio (OR) was 1.2172 (95% CI: 1.1101-1.3347, p < 0.0001), indicating a significant positive association between T2DM and TB. One study identified pleiotropic effects, suggesting potential genetic overlap in DM and TB susceptibility. No reverse causal association was observed, indicating that TB does not increase the risk of DM.
conclusionThis review highlights a causal association between DM and TB, emphasizing the need for integrated screening and management of DM within TB control programs, particularly in high-burden regions. Future MR studies should include diverse populations to enhance generalizability and explore genetic mechanisms underlying this association.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.