Does the time of diagnosis of Type 2 diabetes have a seasonal variation?

Abstract

This prospective, observational study from 1987 to 1990 inclusive, set in hospital diabetes clinics in Leicester City, England (population 287,000), sought to establish whether or not Type 2 diabetes has a seasonal variation in incidence. The dates of diagnosis of 833 newly diagnosed Type 2 diabetic patients were recorded and total monthly incidence over the four year period calculated. Seasonal incidence was assessed by the Edward's test and the test for uniformity on a circle. No seasonal variation in the incidence of Type 2 diabetes was demonstrated, X2=4.32, p=0.11 and X2=3.32, p=0.19 respectively. These findings suggest that, unlike Type 1 diabetes, seasonality plays no significant role in the presentation of Type 2 diabetes. No increase in health care provision is required to cope with seasonal variation in Type 2, unlike that for Type 1 diabetes.

The burden of type 2 diabetes mellitus in states of the European Union and United Kingdom at the national and subnational levels: A systematic review

“…All 41 studies included in the epidemiological analysis were published between 1991 30 and 2020 31,32 . The included studies reported data from 12 different countries, with the number of papers from each country as follows: Austria—2, 33,34 Denmark—4, 32,35–37 France—4, 31,36–38 Finland—1, 39 Germany—9, 8,38,40–46 Hungary—1, 47 Belgium—1, 38 Italy—4, 38,48–50 the Netherlands—2, 38,51 Spain—3, 38,52,53 Sweden—5, 30,38,54–56 and United Kingdom—14 38,57–69 (Figure 2). Some papers reported data on more than one country.…”

“…The data source from which each study retrieved epidemiological data was highly heterogeneous within the publications, and most of the data were collected in databases, previous studies, or clinical/laboratory settings. A few examples of settings and databases cited in the papers were as follows: Hospitals, 35,52,56,69 social security systems, 43 primary care centers, 52,55 clinical centers/practices, 49,56,57,59,66 health information network, 44,68 laboratories, 35,50 national health systems, 31,32,34,35,49 health insurance systems, 8,39,46,47,56 surveys, 30,44 and research datalinks 33,38,39,48,54,58,60,61,63,65,67 . Secondary data analysis based on the following databases was published: AOK, 41 CPRD, 61,65,67 RECAP‐DM, 55 SHIP, 44 EMIS, 68 CARLA, 44,45 DHS, 44 HNR, 44 KORA, 40,44 EPIC, 57,64 Ely, 59,62 Inter99, 36,37 D.E.S.I.R, 36,37 ACG, 48 Asturias, 53 ZODIAC, 51 BPSU, 58 and CODE‐2 38 .…”

“…The data source from which each study retrieved epidemiological data was highly heterogeneous within the publications, and most of the data were collected in databases, previous studies, or clinical/laboratory settings. A few examples of settings and databases cited in the papers were as follows: Hospitals, 35,52,56,69 social security systems, 43 primary care centers, 52,55 clinical centers/practices, 49,56,57,59,66 health information network, 44,68 laboratories, 35,50 national health systems, 31,32,34,35,49 health insurance systems, 8,39,46,47,56 surveys, 30,44 and research datalinks. F I G U R E 2 Included studies reporting epidemiologic data from member states, with the number of papers from each country.…”

“…analysis based on the following databases was published: AOK, 41 CPRD, 61,65,67 RECAP-DM, 55 SHIP, 44 EMIS, 68 CARLA, 44,45 DHS, 44 HNR, 44 KORA, 40,44 EPIC, 57,64 Ely, 59,62 Inter99, 36,37 D.E.S.I.R, 36,37 ACG, 48 Asturias, 53 ZODIAC, 51 BPSU, 58 and CODE-2. 38 Information related to ethical approval was also assessed; 18 studies did not have ethical approval or did not consider it to be necessary, 31,32,[34][35][36][37][38]42,43,[45][46][47][48][49][50]56,63,69 five studies were unclear regarding whether the protocol was approved, 8,40,52,65,66 and 18 reported the actual ethical approval by a forma...…”

“…38 Information related to ethical approval was also assessed; 18 studies did not have ethical approval or did not consider it to be necessary, 31,32,[34][35][36][37][38]42,43,[45][46][47][48][49][50]56,63,69 five studies were unclear regarding whether the protocol was approved, 8,40,52,65,66 and 18 reported the actual ethical approval by a formal committee. 30,33,39,41,44,51,[53][54][55][57][58][59][60][61][62]64,67,68 The methodological quality assessment demonstrated that 37 studies were classified as "high quality," 8,[30][31][32][33][35][36]…”