Skip to main content
. 2023 Aug 24;10:1198988. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2023.1198988

Table 1.

Characteristics of included studies regarding serum lipid levels in inflammatory bowel disease.

Reference Region Study design Type of publication Enrollment period Type of patients Number of patients Age, year (Mean ± SD) TC, mmol/L (Mean ± SD) HDL-c, mmol/L (Mean ± SD) LDL-c, mmol/L (Mean ± SD) TG, mmol/L (Mean ± SD)
Sleutjes Am et al. (28) Netherlands Cross-sectional Abstract NA IBD vs. HC 217/829 NA 4.3 ± 16.2 vs. 5.4 ± 31.7 1.2 ± 7.4 vs. 1.2 ± 11.5 2.6 ± 16.2 vs. 3.8 ± 28.8 2.7 ± 11.8 vs. 3.63 ± 23.0
Lu et al. (14) China Cross-sectional Full text 2014.03–2020.08 CD vs. HC 862/576 33 ± 13 vs. 34 ± 11 3.71 ± 0.86 vs. 5.04 ± 0.94 0.94 ± 0.27 vs. 1.31 ± 0.33 1.85 ± 0.59 vs. 2.92 ± 0.81 1.10 ± 0.40 vs. 1.64 ± 1.02
Hernández-Camba et al. (17) Spain Cross-sectional Full text NA IBD vs. HC 197/208 50 ± 15 vs. 49 ± 10 5.25 ± 1.27 vs. 5.12 ± 1.16 1.47 ± 0.47 vs. 1.32 ± 0.36 3.00 ± 1.03 vs. 3.05 ± 0.96 1.31 ± 0.45 vs. 1.63 ± 0.79
Wang et al. (13) China Cross-sectional Full text 2014.1–2018.11 IBD vs. HC 539/165 40 ± 16 vs. 50 ± 11 3.87 ± 1.01 vs. 4.90 ± 0.90 1.03 ± 0.99 vs. 1.18 ± 0.31 2.41 ± 0.70 vs. 3.14 ± 0.65 1.09 ± 0.42 vs. 1.62 ± 0.91
CD vs. UC 307/232 34 ± 13 vs. 48 ± 16 3.70 ± 0.90 vs. 4.10 ± 1.10 1.00 ± 0.26 vs. 1.08 ± 0.32 2.29 ± 0.64 vs. 2.58 ± 0.74 1.04 ± 0.41 vs. 1.15 ± 0.43
Li et al. (25) China Cross-sectional Full text 2018.06–2019.04 Mild active UC vs. Non-mild active UC 22/24 43 ± 3 vs. 46 ± 3 3.97 ± 0.82 vs. 3.63 ± 0.76 NA 2.59 ± 0.83 vs. 2.33 ± 0.73 NA
Carrillo-Palau et al. (29) Spain Cross-sectional Full text NA IBD vs. HC 151/174 48 ± 10 vs. 50 ± 16 5.07 ± 1.14 vs. 5.28 ± 1.09 1.42 ± 0.41 vs. 1.40 ± 0.39 2.92 ± 0.96 vs. 3.15 ± 0.88 1.59 ± 0.90 vs. 1.56 ± 0.82
Vrdoljak et al. (30) Croatia Cross-sectional Full text 2017.12–2019.04 CD vs. UC 50/44 38 ± 13 vs. 44 ± 14 4.3 ± 1.26 vs. 5.4 ± 1.43 1.28 ± 0.4 vs. 1.5 ± 0.48 2.35 ± 0.89 vs. 3.38 ± 1.27 1.48 ± 1.36 vs. 1.12 ± 0.66
Brnić et al. (31) Croatia Cross-sectional Full text 2017.12.01–2018.06.01 IBD vs. HC 55/50 39 ± 14 vs. 37 ± 13 5.02 ± 1.52 vs. 5.25 ± 1.19 1.37 ± 0.43 vs. 1.41 ± 0.32 2.98 ± 1.20 vs. 3.25 ± 1.10 1.33 ± 1.26 vs. 1.24 ± 0.60
Dragasevic et al. (32) Serbia Cross-sectional Full text NA IBD vs. HC 104/45 40 ± 16 vs. 43 ± 18 4.37 ± 1.17 vs. 4.97 ± 1.00 1.06 ± 0.74 vs. 1.70 ± 0.67 2.16 ± 0.74 vs. 2.72 ± 0.87 1.43 ± 1.06 vs. 1.10 ± 0.59
CD vs. UC 50/54 38 ± 13 vs. 44 ± 14 4.34 ± 1.09 vs. 4.39 ± 1.25 1.02 ± 0.68 vs. 1.11 ± 0.79 1.97 ± 0.74 vs. 2.33 ± 0.71 1.44 ± 0.95 vs. 1.43 ± 1.16
Sahin et al. (33) Turkey Cross-sectional Full text 2016.01–2016.09 UC vs. HC 66/24 40 ± 12 vs. 46 ± 18 NA 1.26 ± 0.39 vs. 1.28 ± 0.35 2.55 ± 1.04 vs. 2.95 ± 1.31 NA
Qiao et al. (34) China Cross-sectional Full text 2015.01–2015.12 CD vs. UC 129/69 35 ± 11 vs. 44 ± 15 3.36 ± 0.79 vs. 3.82 ± 1.26 NA NA 1.07 ± 0.54 vs. 1.10 ± 0.86
Mańkowska-Wierzbicka et al. (18) Poland Cohort Full text NA CD vs. UC 34/31 NA 3.35 ± 1.02 vs. 3.47 ± 1.27 0.96 ± 0.45 vs. 1.04 ± 0.37 1.70 ± 0.77 vs. 1.04 ± 0.37 1.18 ± 0.45 vs. 1.08 ± 0.39
Active CD vs. Active UC 22/19 3.34 ± 1.03 vs. 3.39 ± 1.33 0.96 ± 0.42 vs. 1.05 ± 0.40 1.71 ± 0.80 vs. 1.88 ± 0.87 1.18 ± 0.44 vs. 1.21 ± 0.41
Iwakawa et al. (35) Japan Cross-sectional Full text 2010.08–2010.10 Active UC vs. Inactive UC 6/17 45 ± 16 vs. 42 ± 15 4.86 ± 1.27 vs. 5.04 ± 0.65 NA NA NA
Kang et al. (36) Korea Cohort Full text 2010.01–2014.11 IBD vs. HC 8070/40350 45 ± 13 vs. 45 ± 13 4.72 ± 0.92 vs. 4.96 ± 0.92 NA NA NA
Aarestrup et al. (37) Denmark Cohort Full text NA IBD vs. HC 1203/107586 57 ± 3 vs. 58 ± 3 5.71 ± 1.14 vs. 5.81 ± 1.14 1.60 ± 0.59 vs. 1.57 ± 0.50 3.20 ± 0.98 vs. 3.30 ± 0.89 1.50 ± 0.80 vs. 1.68 ± 1.02
Trejo-Vazquez et al. (38) Mexico Case-control Full text 2016.07–2016.10 IBD vs. HC 34/19 55 ± 15 vs. 53 ± 10 4.68 ± 0.74 vs. 4.95 ± 1.07 1.17 ± 0.32 vs. 1.18 ± 0.32 2.86 ± 0.71 vs. 3.19 ± 0.85 1.49 ± 0.58 vs. 1.36 ± 0.43
Szczeklik et al. (39) Poland Case-control Full text NA CD vs. HC 58/25 36 ± 13 vs. 34 ± 10 4.35 ± 0.66 vs. 4.73 ± 0.39 0.87 ± 0.25 vs. 1.14 ± 0.14 2.38 ± 0.49 vs. 2.95 ± 0.38 1.85 ± 0.31 vs. 2.76 ± 0.27
Schulte et al. (15) Germany Case-control Full text NA IBD vs. HC 35/35 39 ± 25 vs. 39 ± 24 4.75 ± 0.81 vs. 5.13 ± 1.05 1.38 ± 0.49 vs. 1.49 ± 0.35 2.69 ± 0.61 vs. 3.02 ± 0.92 1.53 ± 0.62 vs. 1.11 ± 0.63
Grzybowska-Chlebowczyk et al. (40) Poland Cross-sectional Full text Two years CD vs. UC 35/36 16 ± 2 vs. 14 ± 4 3.30 ± 0.60 vs. 3.60 ± 0.84 NA 1.74 ± 0.81 vs. 1.84 ± 0.70 1.74 ± 0.82 vs. 0.97 ± 0.43
Trzeciak-Jędrzejczyk et al. (41) Poland Case-control Full text NA IBD vs. HC 40/11 NA 3.16 ± 0.53 vs. 3.82 ± 0.79 1.10 ± 0.46 vs. 1.55 ± 0.57 1.70 ± 0.44 vs. 1.83 ± 0.46 0.94 ± 0.41 vs. 1.12 ± 0.29
CD vs. UC 25/15 NA 3.22 ± 0.51 vs. 2.90 ± 0.52 1.17 ± 0.46 vs. 0.99 ± 0.46 1.82 ± 0.35 vs. 1.50 ± 0.51 0.85 ± 0.22 vs. 1.10 ± 0.59
Cappello et al. (42) Italy Case-control Full text 2012.09–2013.12 IBD vs. HC 68/38 44 ± 13 vs. 41 ± 11 4.14 ± 0.85 vs. 4.57 ± 0.92 1.35 ± 0.40 vs. 1.47 ± 0.47 2.33 ± 0.70 vs. 2.67 ± 0.87 1.06 ± 0.45 vs. 0.92 ± 0.51
Üstün et al. (43) Turkey Case-control Full text 2007.03–2009.10 IBD vs. HC 96/65 44 ± 13 vs. 41 ± 11 4.79 ± 1.26 vs. 4.90 ± 1.00 NA 2.72 ± 0.93 vs. 2.84 ± 0.71 1.51 ± 0.81 vs. 1.49 ± 0.78
Qin et al. (19) China Case-control Full text 2013.11–2015.07 CD vs. HC 100/100 33 ± 13 vs. 35 ± 10 3.56 ± 0.91 vs. 4.65 ± 0.72 0.96 ± 0.23 vs. 1.49 ± 0.32 1.99 ± 0.66 vs. 2.80 ± 0.57 1.11 ± 0.44 vs. 1.32 ± 0.53
Active CD vs. Inactive CD 62/38 33 ± 12 vs. 33 ± 14 3.40 ± 0.78 vs. 3.83 ± 1.05 0.93 ± 0.22 vs. 1.01 ± 0.23 1.87 ± 0.54 vs. 2.19 ± 0.78 1.06 ± 0.35 vs. 1.21 ± 0.55
Pac-Kożuchowska et al. (44) Poland Case-control Full text NA IBD vs. HC 30/20 13 ± 3 vs. 13 ± 4 3.40 ± 0.66 vs. 3.20 ± 0.73 1.17 ± 0.35 vs. 1.06 ± 0.24 1.99 ± 0.53 vs. 1.96 ± 0.62 0.97 ± 0.37 vs. 0.81 ± 0.30
Koutroumpakis et al. (45) USA Cohort Full text 2009.1–2014.10 CD vs. UC 380/321 33 ± 18 vs. 35 ± 18 4.40 ± 0.90 vs. 4.70 ± 0.98 1.31 ± 0.43 vs. 1.36 ± 0.41 2.34 ± 0.88 vs. 2.76 ± 0.82 1.64 ± 0.99 vs. 1.38 ± 0.88
De Fatima and Bodanese (23) Brazil Cross-sectional Full text 2014.10–2015.11 Active CD vs. Active UC 64/58 42 ± 13 vs. 42 ± 12 4.39 ± 1.03 vs. 4.77 ± 1.10 1.38 ± 0.35 vs. 1.45 ± 0.42 2.36 ± 0.86 vs. 2.84 ± 0.93 1.46 ± 0.99 vs. 1.26 ± 0.59
Aguilar-Tablada et al. (46) Spain Case-control Full text NA CD vs. UC 53/53 NA 5.02 ± 1.21 vs. 4.23 ± 0.99 NA NA NA
Wada et al. (47) Japan Cross-sectional Full text 2009–2010 CD vs. UC 156/232 36 ± 8 vs. 36 ± 8 4.11 ± 0.99 vs. 4.88 ± 0.88 NA NA NA
Aytac et al. (20) Turkey Case-control Full text NA Inactive IBD vs. HC 55/25 42 ± 11 vs. 42 ± 7 4.32 ± 0.80 vs. 4.37 ± 0.46 1.19 ± 0.25 vs. 1.18 ± 0.24 2.68 ± 0.70 vs. 2.50 ± 0.46 0.96 ± 0.36 vs. 1.53 ± 0.48
Inactive CD vs. Inactive UC 25/30 45 ± 12 vs. 39 ± 10 4.00 ± 0.87 vs. 4.58 ± 0.64 1.14 ± 0.31 vs. 1.23 ± 0.17 2.59 ± 0.77 vs. 2.76 ± 0.64 1.01 ± 0.28 vs. 0.91 ± 0.41
Theocharidou et al. (48) Greece Case-control Full text NA IBD vs. HC 44/44 36 ± 10 vs. 37 ± 11 4.49 ± 1.21 vs. 5.20 ± 0.94 1.26 ± 0.39 vs. 1.31 ± 0.35 2.75 ± 0.94 vs. 3.35 ± 0.82 0.99 ± 0.37 vs. 1.11 ± 0.56
Fan et al. (49) Australia Case-control Full text NA IBD vs. HC 42/73 50 ± 10 vs. 51 ± 10 5.23 ± 1.20 vs. 5.45 ± 0.86 1.46 ± 0.45 vs. 1.50 ± 0.33 3.19 ± 1.15 vs. 3.45 ± 0.81 1.34 ± 1.06 vs. 1.11 ± 0.65
Principi et al. (50) Italy Case-control Full text 2011.05–2011.10 IBD vs. HC 49/40 41 ± 16 vs. 45 ± 15 4.29 ± 0.52 vs. 4.42 ± 0.85 1.21 ± 0.18 vs. 1.26 ± 0.31 2.48 ± 0.49 vs. 2.59 ± 0.85 1.31 ± 0.15 vs. 1.26 ± 0.65
CD vs. UC 26/23 36 ± 17 vs. 45 ± 14 4.27 ± 0.57 vs. 4.34 ± 0.47 1.21 ± 0.21 vs. 1.24 ± 0.18 2.46 ± 0.49 vs. 2.48 ± 0.49 1.30 ± 0.12 vs. 1.31 ± 0.16
Liu et al. (26) China Cross-sectional Full text 2006.01–2012.11 Active UC vs. HC 97/100 56 ± 15 vs. 59 ± 13 4.20 ± 0.95 vs. 4.60 ± 1.10 1.13 ± 0.33 vs. 1.29 ± 0.33 2.61 ± 0.82 vs. 2.64 ± 0.78 1.44 ± 1.00 vs. 1.43 ± 1.01
Mild active UC vs. Non-mild active UC 41/56 NA 4.51 ± 0.88 vs. 3.97 ± 0.95 1.23 ± 0.29 vs. 1.05 ± 0.33 2.84 ± 0.80 vs. 2.45 ± 0.80 1.43 ± 1.04 vs. 1.44 ± 0.98
Akdoğan et al. (51) Turkey Cross-sectional Full text NA UC vs. HC 37/30 48 ± 15 vs. 45 ± 8 5.07 ± 0.98 vs. 5.12 ± 1.19 1.16 ± 0.28 vs. 1.16 ± 0.23 3.49 ± 1.01 vs. 3.26 ± 0.93 1.52 ± 0.75 vs. 1.52 ± 0.94
Yorulmaz et al. (52) Turkey Cross-sectional Full text NA CD vs. UC 62/115 37 ± 14 vs. 44 ± 14 NA 1.37 ± 0.40 vs. 1.40 ± 0.39 NA 1.37 ± 0.72 vs. 1.37 ± 0.65
Kuwabara et al. (53) Japan Cross-sectional Full text NA CD vs. UC 33/31 36 ± 7 vs. 42 ± 17 3.28 ± 0.65 vs. 4.58 ± 1.04 NA NA NA
Sappati Biyyani et al. (54) USA Cross-sectional Full text 2000.01–2007.12 CD vs. UC 190/204 49 ± 13 vs. 49 ± 14 4.52 ± 1.04 vs. 4.79 ± 1.04 1.25 ± 0.35 vs. 1.27 ± 0.36 2.93 ± 0.89 vs. 3.06 ± 0.84 1.31 ± 0.77 vs. 1.40 ± 1.06
Mijac et al. (55) Serbia Cross-sectional Full text NA IBD vs. HC 76/30 41 ± 15 vs. 45 ± 18 3.80 ± 1.17 vs. 4.85 ± 0.82 NA NA 1.54 ± 1.71 vs. 2.11 ± 0.87
CD vs. UC 23/53 39 ± 15 vs. 42 ± 15 3.54 ± 0.96 vs. 3.90 ± 1.24 NA NA 1.92 ± 2.82 vs. 1.40 ± 1.05
Romanato et al. (56) Italy Cross-sectional Full text 2004.12–2006.03 IBD vs. HC 94/94 NA 4.20 ± 1.09 vs. 5.35 ± 0.63 1.30 ± 0.44 vs. 1.40 ± 0.25 2.37 ± 0.98 vs. 3.34 ± 0.57 1.18 ± 0.53 vs. 1.33 ± 0.33
CD vs. UC 60/34 45 ± 23 vs. 50 ± 13 4.16 ± 1.15 vs. 4.27 ± 1.00 1.32 ± 0.45 vs. 1.26 ± 0.48 2.35 ± 1.00 vs. 2.40 ± 0.96 1.11 ± 0.43 vs. 1.29 ± 0.66
Hrabovský et al. (21) Czech Republic Case-control Full text NA Active CD vs. HC 24/100 NA 3.16 ± 1.16 vs. 4.90 ± 0.98 NA NA NA
Scarpa et al. (57) Italy Case-control Full text 2004.12–2006.03 UC vs. HC 15/15 50 ± 29 vs. 50 ± 28 4.19 ± 1.29 vs. 5.56 ± 1.05 1.09 ± 0.40 vs. 1.46 ± 0.42 2.47 ± 1.15 vs. 3.51 ± 0.98 1.18 ± 0.40 vs. 1.32 ± 0.83
Van Leuven et al. (24) Netherlands Case-control Full text NA CD vs. HC 60/122 42 ± 12 vs. 41 ± 16 4.54 ± 1.12 vs. 5.04 ± 0.99 1.53 ± 0.48 vs. 1.47 ± 0.53 2.59 ± 0.96 vs. 2.99 ± 0.81 0.92 ± 0.62 vs. 1.34 ± 1.25
Active CD vs. Inactive CD 12/48 34 ± 9 vs. 44 ± 13 3.79 ± 0.89 vs. 4.73 ± 1.11 1.01 ± 0.30 vs. 1.66 ± 0.43 2.46 ± 0.91 vs. 2.62 ± 0.97 0.70 ± 0.88 vs. 0.98 ± 0.54
Figler et al. (58) Hungary Cross-sectional Full text NA IBD vs. HC 51/24 40 ± 12 vs. 32 ± 9 5.16 ± 1.15 vs. 5.61 ± 0.94 1.58 ± 0.39 vs. 1.58 ± 0.39 NA NA
Inactive CD vs. Inactive UC 21/30 38 ± 11 vs. 41 ± 12 4.75 ± 0.95 vs. 5.48 ± 1.20 1.60 ± 0.45 vs. 1.57 ± 0.35 NA NA
Yılmaz et al. (59) Turkey Case-control Full text NA IBD vs. HC 33/27 34 ± 15 vs. 34 ± 11 4.55 ± 0.65 vs. 4.32 ± 0.77 1.09 ± 0.22 vs. 1.22 ± 0.21 2.61 ± 0.66 vs. 2.56 ± 0.73 1.50 ± 0.57 vs. 1.43 ± 0.95
Ripollés Piquer et al. (16) France Case-control Full text NA IBD vs. HC 21/28 29 ± 9 vs. 31 ± 9 4.26 ± 1.21 vs. 5.25 ± 1.06 1.28 ± 0.28 vs. 1.78 ± 0.47 2.42 ± 1.04 vs. 3.10 ± 0.88 1.21 ± 0.54 vs. 0.45 ± 0.46
Active IBD vs. Inactive IBD 15/6 28 ± 9 vs. 33 ± 11 4.19 ± 1.32 vs. 4.42 ± 0.96 1.24 ± 0.23 vs. 1.38 ± 0.38 2.40 ± 1.18 vs. 2.48 ± 0.65 1.21 ± 0.60 vs. 1.22 ± 0.40
Tajika et al. (60) Japan Cross-sectional Full text 2001.12–2002.1 IBD vs. HC 44/15 40 ± 10 vs. 38 ± 10 4.20 ± 1.26 vs. 5.28 ± 0.83 NA NA NA
CD vs. UC 33/11 38 ± 8 vs. 48 ± 12 3.80 ± 1.11 vs. 5.42 ± 0.87 NA NA NA
Koutroubakis et al. (61) Greece Case-control Full text NA IBD vs. HC 129/66 NA 5.15 ± 1.59 vs. 6.11 ± 1.37 1.26 ± 0.40 vs. 1.23 ± 0.32 3.32 ± 1.33 vs. 4.11 ± 1.12 1.31 ± 0.70 vs. 1.42 ± 0.91
CD vs. UC 66/63 NA 5.57 ± 1.52 vs. 4.71 ± 1.57 1.30 ± 0.40 vs. 1.22 ± 0.40 3.75 ± 1.19 vs. 2.87 ± 1.33 1.25 ± 0.54 vs. 1.38 ± 0.83
Levy et al. (22) Canada Case-control Full text NA Active CD vs. Inactive CD 13/8 NA 3.23 ± 0.83 vs. 3.39 ± 0.62 0.93 ± 0.43 vs. 1.04 ± 0.23 1.83 ± 0.61 vs. 1.84 ± 0.59 1.04 ± 0.36 vs. 1.13 ± 0.28
Hudson et al. (62) England Case-control Full text NA IBD vs. HC 110/85 44 ± 18 vs. 42 ± 16 NA NA NA 1.19 ± 0.59 vs. 1.19 ± 0.85
CD vs. UC 75/35 44 ± 18 vs. 44 ± 18 NA NA NA 1.08 ± 0.48 vs. 1.41 ± 0.74
Hakala et al. (63) Finland Case-control Full text NA CD vs. UC 29/50 31 ± 3 vs. 35 ± 3 3.84 ± 0.38 vs. 4.46 ± 0.30 1.23 ± 0.23 vs. 1.10 ± 0.10 NA 1.07 ± 0.14 vs. 1.23 ± 0.21
Regöly-Mérei et al. (64) Hungary Case-control Full text NA UC vs. HC 11/20 NA 4.89 ± 1.39 vs. 4.06 ± 0.93 NA NA 1.64 ± 0.80 vs. 0.93 ± 0.51
Rutgeerts et al. (65) Belgium Case-control Full text NA CD vs. HC 56/21 29 ± 7 vs. 29 ± 11 6.00 ± 0.98 vs. 4.46 ± 1.33 NA NA 1.08 ± 0.27 vs. 1.09 ± 0.29
Johansson et al. (66) Sweden Case-control Full text NA CD vs. HC 37/117 NA 4.33 ± 0.96 vs. 6.55 ± 1.31 NA NA 1.43 ± 0.58 vs. 1.41 ± 0.55

TC, total cholesterol; HDL-c, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; LDL-c, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; TG, triglycerides; IBD, inflammatory bowel disease; CD, Crohn’s disease; UC, ulcerative colitis; HC, healthy controls; NA, not available.