supplementaryFig.1 Maximum-adjusted pooled relative risk for incident chronic kidney disease, comparing individuals with diabetes versus those without diabetes


supplementaryFig.2 Pooled adjusted women-to-men relative risk ratio (RRR) for incident chronic kidney disease, comparing individuals with diabetes versus those without diabetes after excluding the studies with the outcome only for end stage renal disease

supplementaryFig. 3 Meta-influence analysis for incident chronic kidney disease without the studies with the outcome only for end stage renal disease

supplementaryFig.4 Meta-regression of lnRRR (ratio of women-to-men relative risks) against mean age of participants in each study (a); the prevalence of diabetes (b); or the baseline year of the studies (c)

supplementaryFig.5 Maximum-adjusted pooled women-to-men relative risk ratio (RRR) for incident end stage renal disease, comparing individuals with diabetes versus those without diabetes

supplementaryFig. 6 Meta-influence analysis for incident end stage renal disease


supplementaryFig.7 Filled funnel plot of diabetes and risk of chronic kidney disease

supplementaryTable 1 Newcastle-Ottawa Scale assessment of the quality of the included cohort studies (a) and the included case-control study (b)

Selection / Comparability / Outcome
study / Representativeness of the cohort / Selection of non exposed cohort / Ascertainment of exposure / Demonstration the outcome was not present at start / Comparability based on design or analysis / Ascertainment of outcome / Long follow up / Non-response rate / Total scores
Julia et al. / ☆ / ☆ / ☆ / ☆ / ☆☆ / ☆ / ☆ / — / 8
Jay et al. / ☆ / ☆ / ☆ / ☆ / ☆— / ☆ / ☆ / — / 7
Maryam et al. / ☆ / ☆ / — / ☆ / ☆☆ / ☆ / ☆ / — / 7
Melanie et al. / ☆ / ☆ / — / ☆ / ☆☆ / ☆ / ☆ / — / 7
Yamagata et al. / ☆ / ☆ / — / ☆ / ☆☆ / ☆ / ☆ / — / 7
Falk et al. / ☆ / ☆ / ☆ / — / ☆— / ☆ / ☆ / — / 6
Roland et al. / ☆ / ☆ / ☆ / ☆ / ☆— / ☆ / ☆ / — / 7
Jan et al. / ☆ / ☆ / ☆ / ☆ / ☆— / ☆ / ☆ / ☆ / 8
Kei et al. / ☆ / ☆ / ☆ / ☆ / ☆☆ / ☆ / ☆ / — / 8

a

Selection / Comparability / Exposure
study / Case definition adequate / Representativeness of the cases / Selection of Controls / Definition of controls / Comparability based on design or analysis / Ascertainment of exposure / Same method of ascertainment for cases and controls / Non-response rate / Total scores
Erci et al. / ☆ / ☆ / ☆ / ☆ / ☆— / ☆ / ☆ / — / 7

b

supplementary Table 2 Sensitivity analyses for incident chronic kidney disease without the studies with only end stage renal disease as outcome

Omitted study / RRRa (95% CI) / I² (%) / pb value / Test for overall effect
Jan et al. (CKD stage 1-2) / 1.02 (0.89, 1.16) / 29.3% / 0.204 / z = 0.27, p= 0.787
Jan et al. (CKD stage 3-5) / 1.02 (0.81, 1.29) / 67.6% / 0.005 / z = 0.16, p = 0.869
Maryam et al. / 0.95 (0.82, 1.10) / 62.5% / 0.014 / z = 0.68, p = 0.494
Julia et al.(T1DM) / 0.96 (0.82, 1.13) / 67.2% / 0.006 / z = 0.46, p = 0.647
Julia et al.(T2DM) / 0.96 (0.82, 1.13) / 66.9% / 0.006 / z = 0.49, p = 0.627
yamagata et al. (CKD stage 1-2) / 0.92 (0.79, 1.07) / 56.0% / 0.034 / z = 1.10, p = 0.271
yamagata et al. (CKD stage 3-5) / 0.94 (0.80, 1.12) / 60.6% / 0.019 / z = 0.67, p = 0.502
Kei et al. / 0.97 (0.82, 1.14) / 67.3% / 0.005 / z = 0.41, p = 0.679

aThe pooled adjusted women-to-men relative risk ratio for incident chronic kidney disease in random-effect model

b A p value ＜0.10 meant statistically significant for heterogeneity

supplementary Table 3 Sensitivity analysesfor incident end stage renal disease

Omitted study / RRRa (95% CI) / I² (%) / p b value / Test for overall effect
Eric et al. / 1.39 (1.24,1.55) / 32.4% / 0.170 / z = 5.87, p = 0.000
Melanie et al. / 1.37 (1.21,1.54) / 40.5% / 0.108 / z =5.13, p = 0.000
Falk et al. / 1.35 (1.20,1.52) / 36.6% / 0.137 / z = 5.07, p = 0.000
Roland et al. / 1.40 (1.18,1.65) / 41.1% / 0.105 / z = 3.93, p = 0.000
Jan et al. / 1.38 (1.21,1.57) / 45.7% / 0.075 / z = 4.88, p = 0.000
Julia et al.(T1DM) / 1.36 (1.21,1.53) / 37.9% / 0.127 / z = 5.10, p = 0.000
Julia et al.(T2DM) / 1.35 (1.20,1.53) / 39.4% / 0.117 / z = 4.81, p = 0.000
Jay et al.(black) / 1.43 (1.29,1.59) / 8.3% / 0.366 / z = 6.83, p = 0.000
Jay et al.(other) / 1.40 (1.21,1.62) / 45.9% / 0.074 / z = 4.46, p = 0.000

aThe pooled adjusted women-to-men relative risk ratio for incident end stage renal disease in random-effect model

bA p value ﹤0.10 meant statistically significant for heterogeneity