4.7 Article

Older women with diabetes have a higher risk of falls

期刊

DIABETES CARE
卷 25, 期 10, 页码 1749-1754

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/diacare.25.10.1749

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIAMS NIH HHS [AR35584, AR35583, AR35582] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIA NIH HHS [AG05394, AG05407] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE - To determine whether older women with diabetes have an increased risk of falls and whether known risk factors for falls account for any increased risk. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS- This prospective cohort study included 9,249 women greater than or equal to67 years of age enrolled in the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures. Diabetes was determined by questionnaire at baseline. Physical performance was measured at the second examination. Subsequently, falls were ascertained every 4 months by postcard. RESULTS- A total of 629 (6.8%) women had diabetes, including 99 who used insulin. During an average of 7.2 years, 1,640 women (18%) fell more than once a year. Diabetes, stratified by insulin use, was associated with an increased risk of falling more than once a year (age-adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.68 [95% CI 1.37-2.07] for non-insulin-treated diabetes; age-adjusted OR 2.78 [1.82-4.24] for insulin-treated diabetes). In the first 2 years of follow-up, women with diabetes were not more likely to fall than women without diabetes (44 vs. 42%; P = 0.26), but they had more falls (3.1 vs. 2.4; P < 0.01). Women with diabetes were more likely to have other risk factors for falls, which appeared to account for the increased risk of falls associated with non-insulin-treated diabetes (adjusted OR 1.18 [0.87-1.60]) but not insulin-treated diabetes (adjusted OR 2.76 [1.52-5.01]). CONCLUSIONS - Older women with diabetes have an increased risk of falling, partly because of the increased rates of known fall risk factors, and may benefit from interventions to prevent falls. Further research is needed to determine whether diabetes treatment reduces fall risk.

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