4.7 Article

Prevalence of lower-extremity disease in the US adult population ≥40 years of age with and without diabetes -: 1999-2000 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey

期刊

DIABETES CARE
卷 27, 期 7, 页码 1591-1597

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/diacare.27.7.1591

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE - Although lower-extremity disease (LED), which includes lower-extremity peripheral arterial disease (PAD) and peripheral neuropathy (PN), is disabling and costly, no nationally representative estimates of its prevalence exist. The aim of this study was to examine the prevalence of lower-extremity PAD, PN, and overall LED in the overall U.S. population and among those with and without diagnosed diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS - The analysis consisted of data for 2,873 men and women aged greater than or equal to40 years, including 419 with diagnosed diabetes, from the 1999-2000 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. The main Outcome measures consisted of the prevalence of lower-extremity PAD (defined as ankle-brachial index <0.9), PN (defined as greater than or equal to1 insensate area based on monofilament testing), and of any LED (defined as either PAD, PN, or history of foot ulcer or lower-extremity amputations). RESULTS - Of the U.S. population aged greater than or equal to40 years, 4.5% (95% CI 3.4-5.6) have lower-extremity PAD, 14.8% (12.8-1.6.8) have PN, and 18.7% (15.9-21.4) have any LED. Prevalence of PAD, PN, and overall LED increases steeply with age and is higher (P < 0.05) in non-Hispanic blacks and Mexican Americans than non-Hispanic whites. The prevalence of LEDs is approximately twice as high for individuals with diagnosed diabetes (PAD 9.5% [5.5-13.4], PN 28.5% [22.0-35.1]; any LED 30.2% [22.1-38.3]) as the overall population. CONCLUSIONS - LED is common in the U.S. and twice as high among individuals with diagnosed diabetes. These conditions disproportionately affect the elderly, non-Hispanic blacks, and Mexican Americans.

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