4.6 Article

Deaths Attributable to Diabetes in the United States: Comparison of Data Sources and Estimation Approaches

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0170219

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute on Aging at the National Institutes of Health [R01AG040212]
  2. National Center for Health Statistics [R03SH000037]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective The goal of this research was to identify the fraction of deaths attributable to diabetes in the United States. Research Design and Methods We estimated population attributable fractions (PAF) for cohorts aged 30-84 who were surveyed in the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) between 1997 and 2009 (N = 282,322) and in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) between 1999 and 2010 (N = 21,814). Cohort members were followed prospectively for mortality through 2011. We identified diabetes status using self-reported diagnoses in both NHIS and NHANES and using HbA1c in NHANES. Hazard ratios associated with diabetes were estimated using Cox model adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, educational attainment, and smoking status. Results We found a high degree of consistency between data sets and definitions of diabetes in the hazard ratios, estimates of diabetes prevalence, and estimates of the proportion of deaths attributable to diabetes. The proportion of deaths attributable to diabetes was estimated to be 11.5% using self-reports in NHIS, 11.7% using self-reports in NHANES, and 11.8% using HbA1c in NHANES. Among the sub-groups that we examined, the PAF was highest among obese persons at 19.4%. The proportion of deaths in which diabetes was assigned as the underlying cause of death (3.3-3.7%) severely understated the contribution of diabetes to mortality in the United States. Conclusion Diabetes may represent a more prominent factor in American mortality than is commonly appreciated, reinforcing the need for robust population-level interventions aimed at diabetes prevention and care.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据