1999
DOI: 10.1093/eurpub/9.2.149
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Short report. Effect of the application of the new diagnostic criteria of diabetes mellitus in the prevalence estimates and diagnostic level in the general population

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
5
0
1

Year Published

1999
1999
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
0
5
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The variety of sources, methodologies, and estimations made it difficult to select only one value; 5% is the figure from the 1997 Spanish National Health Survey (28) for adults (18 years and older) who reported that they had diabetes, had high blood glucose levels, or used antidiabetes drugs. In more recent studies, prevalence was near 6% or even higher (18,26,27,29). The interval selected is rather conservative, given that it is well established that a significant percentage of diabetes is not diagnosed (18,30), whereas prevalence of diabetes is increasing.…”
Section: Research Design Andmentioning
confidence: 91%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The variety of sources, methodologies, and estimations made it difficult to select only one value; 5% is the figure from the 1997 Spanish National Health Survey (28) for adults (18 years and older) who reported that they had diabetes, had high blood glucose levels, or used antidiabetes drugs. In more recent studies, prevalence was near 6% or even higher (18,26,27,29). The interval selected is rather conservative, given that it is well established that a significant percentage of diabetes is not diagnosed (18,30), whereas prevalence of diabetes is increasing.…”
Section: Research Design Andmentioning
confidence: 91%
“…In more recent studies, prevalence was near 6% or even higher (18,26,27,29). The interval selected is rather conservative, given that it is well established that a significant percentage of diabetes is not diagnosed (18,30), whereas prevalence of diabetes is increasing. Another assumption is that 90% of cases were considered type 2 diabetes and 10% type 1 diabetes (30).…”
Section: Research Design Andmentioning
confidence: 91%
“…In Spain, estimates of its prevalence range from 7% to 16%, depending on the geographical area and diagnostic criteria used, highlighting the fact that undiagnosed diabetes could constitute a further 3.7%. Incidence ranges between 8.1 and 10.8 per thousand inhabitants ⁄ year (5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The fact that prevalence figures are higher based on the proposed new criteria, though not applied in quite the same way, than those based on the old criteria is in line with those obtained in the DECODE study, which included the same elderly source population examined in this study for the first time in 1991 -92 (9). In addition, the recent paper by Muñ iz et al showed that the prevalence figures are clearly higher among elderly subjects when the proposed new fasting values are used as diagnostic criteria for diabetes (10).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%