4.7 Article

Does self-monitoring of blood glucose improve outcome in type 2 diabetes? The Fremantle Diabetes Study

期刊

DIABETOLOGIA
卷 50, 期 3, 页码 510-515

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00125-006-0581-0

关键词

cohort study; epidemiology; outcomes; self-monitoring of blood glucose; type 2 diabetes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims/hypothesis To assess whether self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) is an independent predictor of improved outcome in a community-based cohort of type 2 diabetic patients. Materials and methods We used longitudinal data from (1) 1,280 type 2 diabetic participants in the observational Fremantle Diabetes Study (FDS) who reported SMBG and diabetes treatment status at study entry (1993-1996), and (2) a subset of 531 participants who attended six or more annual assessments (referred to as the 5-year cohort). Diabetes-related morbidity, cardiac death and all-cause mortality were ascertained at each assessment, supplemented by linkage to the Western Australian Data Linkage System. Results At baseline, 70.2% (898 out of 1,280) of type 2 patients used SMBG. During 12,491 patient-years of follow-up (mean 9.8 +/- 3.5 years), 486 (38.0%) type 2 participants died (196 [15.3%] from cardiac causes). SMBG was significantly less prevalent in those who died during follow-up than in those who were still alive at the end of June 2006 (65.4 vs 73.0%, p=0.005). In Cox proportional hazards modelling, after adjustment for confounding and explanatory variables, SMBG was not independently associated with all-cause mortality, but was associated with a 79% increased risk of cardiovascular mortality in patients not treated with insulin. For the 5-year cohort, time-dependent SMBG was independently associated with a 48% reduced risk of retinopathy. Conclusions/interpretation SMBG was not independently associated with improved survival. Inconsistent findings relating to the association of SMBG with cardiac death and retinopathy may be due to confounding, incomplete covariate adjustment or chance.

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

4.7
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