Table 2

ORs and 95% CIs for the association between NAFLD at baseline and T2DM incidence, stratified by sex

All participants (n = 3,074)Men (n = 1,866)Women (n = 1,208)
CrudeMultivariate adjustedMultivariate adjustedMultivariate adjusted
OR (95% CI)P valueOR (95% CI)P valueOR (95% CI)P valueOR (95% CI)P value
NAFLD at baseline6.05 (4.45–8.22)<0.0012.37 (1.60–3.52)<0.0012.27 (1.47–3.51)<0.0013.01 (1.18–7.68)0.021
Age (continuous)1.04 (1.02–1.07)<0.0011.04 (1.01–1.07)0.00221.05 (1.00–1.11)0.073
Women0.91 (0.61–1.35)0.63
BMI (continuous)1.11 (1.04–1.17)0.00101.12 (1.04–1.20)0.00171.05 (0.94–1.18)0.37
IFG4.11 (2.93–5.77)<0.0013.62 (2.47–5.32)<0.0016.12 (3.09–12.14)<0.001
Family history of diabetes2.16 (1.50–3.13)<0.0012.03 (1.32–3.13)0.00132.76 (1.33–5.78)0.0066
DL1.68 (1.18–2.39)0.00401.73 (1.15–2.59)0.00841.45 (0.68–3.11)0.34
HT1.08 (0.71–1.63)0.731.06 (0.67–1.67)0.811.16 (0.43–3.08)0.77
Physical exercise0.54 (0.31–0.95)0.0340.55 (0.28–1.06)0.0740.47 (0.15–1.51)0.21
  • Logistic regression models were used to estimate the ORs, 95% CIs, and P values.