Characteristics of included studies which investigated the association between NAFLD and Increased CIMT
| Name, year | Study region | Study population | Study size | n (%) NAFLD | Age (NAFLD+ vs NAFLD−) | % male (NAFLD+ vs NAFLD−) | NAFLD assessment | Outcome assessment | Outcome definition | Confounder adjustment | NOS (max=9) |
| Mohammadzadeh et al44 2019 | Other: Iran | Hospital based | 300 | 150 (50.0) | 49.9 vs 52.5 | 65.3 vs 57.3 | Ultrasound | Ultrasound, mean IMT (L&R) | CIMT >0.8 | Age, BMI, HLP, HTN, DM | 8 |
| Tan et al80 2019 | Asia | Government officials (health screen) | 131 | 84 (64.1) | Overall=47.1 | 84.0 vs 60.7 | Ultrasound (Fibroscan, Controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) ≥263 dB/min) | Ultrasound, mean IMT (6 measurements) | CIMT >0.8 | Age, sex, WC, ALT, DM, HT | 8 |
| Oni et al22 2019 | North America | Population based | 4123 | 729 (17.7) | 61 vs 63 | 47.0 vs 44.0 | CT, LS ratio <1 | Ultrasound, mean internal carotid IMT (L&R) | CIMT >1.0 | Age, sex, ethnicity, SBP, fasting glucose, lipid-lowering meds, HT meds, LDL, Smk, BMI, logCRP | 9 |
| Yi et al45 2018 | Asia | Outpatient clinic | 1981 | 1888 (95.3) | 45.9 vs 44.8 | 63.4 vs 40.1 | Ultrasound | Ultrasound, mean of max IMT (L&R) | – | Sex, SBP, FPG, TG, TC, LDL, ALT, AST, GGT, Cr | 6 |
| Zheng et al28 2018 | Asia | Population based | 4112 | 1571 (38.2) | 56.2 vs 55.6 | 64.4 vs 35.6 | Ultrasound | Ultrasound, max IMT (L&R) | CIMT >0.8 | Age, sex, BMI, exercise, Smk, WC, TG, LDL, DM, HT | 9 |
| Martínez-Alvarado et al81 2014 | Mexican | Population based | 429 | 122 (28.4) | 52.1 vs 54.1 | 0.0 vs 0.0 | CT, LS ratio <1 | Ultrasound, mean IMT (10 measurements) | >75th sex/age-specific percentile | Age, HT, hypercholesterolaemia, hyperTAG, HDL, WC, HOMA-IR | 9 |
| Lankarani et al82 2013 | Other: Iran | Population based | 580 | 290 (50.0) | 46.4 vs 45.4 | 44.8 vs 40.0 | Ultrasound | Ultrasound, mean IMT (6 measurements) | CIMT >0.8 | Age, sex, WC, DM, HT, TAG, HDL | 9 |
| Huang et al62 2012 | Asia | Population based | 8632 | 2590 (30.0) | 58.5 vs 58.5 | 31.4 vs 30.9 | Ultrasound | Ultrasound, max IMT (L&R) | CIMT >0.8 | Age, sex, alcohol, Smk, exercise, BMI, LDL, central obesity, FBG, TG, BP, HDL, HOMA-IR | 9 |
| Kang et al61 2012 | Asia | Outpatient (health screen), MetS(−) participants | 413 | 157 (38.0) | 52.0 vs 52.5 | 51.0 vs 41.8 | Ultrasound | Ultrasound, mean IMT (L&R) | CIMT >1.0 | Age, BP, BMI, WC, lipid profile, liver enzymes | 8 |
| Thakur et al59 2012 | Asia | Hospital based | 80 | 40 (50.0) | 42.1 vs 41.9 | 67.5 vs 67.5 | Ultrasound | Ultrasound, mean IMT (6 measurements) | CIMT >0.556 | Generalised and abdominal obesity, MetS, fasting insulin, dyslipidaemia, SBP, DBP, hsCRP | 8 |
| Kim et al83 2009 | Asia | Population (health screen) | 1021 | 507 (49.7) | – | 62.5 vs 46.5 | Ultrasound | Ultrasound, mean of max IMT (L&R) | CIMT >0.8 | Age, sex, WC, SBP, fasting glucose, total/HDL cholesterol ratio, Smk, alcohol | 9 |
| Fracanzani et al74 2008 | Europe | Hospital based | 375 | 125 (33.3) | 50.5 vs 52.0 | 87.2 vs 87.2 | Ultrasound+biopsy | Ultrasound, mean IMT (6 measurements) | CIMT >0.64 | Sex, Smk, HDL, LDL, TAG, fasting glucose, MetS, DM, BMI, AAT | 8 |
| Brea et al79 2005 | Europe | Hospital based | 80 | 40 (50.0) | 53.2 vs 51.6 | 50.0 vs 50.0 | Ultrasound | Ultrasound, mean IMT | CIMT top quartile | Sex, age, BMI, SBP, DBP, DM, lab serum values | 8 |
BMI, body mass index; CIMT, carotid intima-media thickness; Cr, creatinine; DM, diabetes mellitus; L&R, left and right; MetS, metabolic syndrome; NAFLD, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease; NOS, Newcastle–Ottawa Scale.