Key result
Serum Metrnl levels show no association with T2DM and CAD risk versus healthy controls.
Why the study?
Reports have been inconsistent regarding the association of the adipokine Metrnl-like protein with the risk of metabolic syndrome, T2DM, and CAD.
Is serum Metrnl-like protein associated with the risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus and coronary artery disease?
Meta-Analysis
Is serum Metrnl-like protein associated with the risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus and coronary artery disease?
Standardized Mean Difference: -0.717 (95% CI -1.572–0.139)
p-value: p=0.1
Serum Metrnl-like protein levels are not significantly associated with the risk of T2DM and CAD, though there may be an inverse connection with adiposity.
There have been inconsistent reports that Metrnl-like protein, a new adipokine, is associated with the risk of metabolic syndrome (MetS), type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and coronary artery disease (CAD). A systematic search in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google scholar databases were conducted up until 24 November 2020. Ten eligible studies were included in this meta-analysis. The overall results showed that there was no significant association between serum Metrnl levels and risk of T2DM and CAD in patients compared with healthy control (SMD= −0.717 and 95%CI −1.572_0.139, p = .1). However, in subgroup analysis, there was a significant association between a BMI ≥ 25 and the serum level of Metrnl-like protein (SMD= −0.688 and 95%CI −1.348_−0.028 p = .041), indicating a potential inverse connection between serum Metrnl and the adiposity. Further well-designed studies are needed to explain the more subtle roles of Metrnl in metabolic disorders like T2DM and CAD.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ferns et al. (2021) conducted a meta-analysis in Type 2 diabetes mellitus and coronary artery disease. Serum Metrnl-like protein levels vs. Healthy controls was evaluated on Risk of T2DM and CAD (SMD -0.717, 95% CI -1.572 to 0.139, p=0.1). Serum Metrnl levels were not significantly associated with the risk of T2DM and CAD compared with healthy controls (SMD -0.717; 95% CI -1.572 to 0.139; P=0.1).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: