4.6 Article

Prevalence and associated factors of diabetic retinopathy in Beijing, China: a cross-sectional study

Journal

BMJ OPEN
Volume 7, Issue 8, Pages -

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015473

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [8151101058]
  2. Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Project [D171100002817005]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives The study aimed to determine the exact risk factors for diabetic retinopathy (DR) in the Chinese population using a cohort of 17 985 individuals from Beijing, China. Design Cross-sectional study. Setting A hospital. Participants 17 985 individuals from Beijing, China. Primary and secondary outcome measures This was a cross-sectional study of permanent residents from the Changping area (Beijing, China) recruited from July 2010 to March 2011 and from March 2014 to February 2015 during a routine health examination at the Tongren Hospital of Beijing. Eye examinations were conducted by experienced ophthalmologists. Medical history, height, weight, body mass index (BMI) and blood pressure were recorded. Routine laboratory examinations were performed. Results The prevalence of DR was 1.5% in the general study population and 8.1% among individuals with diabetes. Compared with the non-DR group, individuals in the DR group in the diabetes population had longer disease duration, higher systolic blood pressure (SBP), fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and uric acid (UA) (in men) and lower UA (in women) (all p<0.05). The multivariate analysis showed that disease duration (p<0.001), BMI (p=0.046), SBP (p=0.012), creatinine clearance rate (CCR) (p=0.014), UA (p=0.018) and FPG (p<0.001) were independently associated with DR in patients with diabetes. Conclusion The prevalence of DR was 8.1% among patients with diabetes. Disease duration, BMI, SBP, CCR, UA and FPG were independently associated with DR.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available