4.3 Article

Longitudinal assessment of the development of diabetic polyneuropathy and associated risk factors

期刊

DIABETIC MEDICINE
卷 19, 期 9, 页码 771-776

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1046/j.1464-5491.2002.00778.x

关键词

diabetic polyneuropathy; neurological examination; prospective study; Type 2 diabetes; primary health care

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims To longitudinally assess risk factors for diabetic polyneuropathy (DPN) severity, and to longitudinally assess risk factors for the change of DPN severity during 2-4 years of follow-up. Methods From 1995 to 1999, 486 Type 2 diabetes patients in general practice were examined annually with regard to DPN severity and its possible risk factors. DPN severity was assessed with a clinical neurological examination (CNE) which included pinprick sense, light touch sense, vibration sense and ankle jerk. Longitudinal (multivariate) linear associations of (change of) CNE score and predicting variables were analysed using multilevel analyses. Results In this population, 50% of participants were men and had a mean age of 65.4 years, almost one-third (31.7%) of the participants had a CNE score > 4 at baseline and were classified with DPN. CNE score significantly increased during follow-up. Among participants not graded with DPN at baseline, 21.3% progressed towards a CNE score > 4 after 3 years of follow-up. Longitudinal multivariate analyses showed that age, diabetes duration, HbA(1c), height, body mass index and ankle-arm index together best predicted CNE score during follow-up. Change of CNE score during follow-up was best predicted by age, diabetes duration and HbA(1c), with the latter being the strongest predictor. Conclusions Although several factors are longitudinally associated with DPN, HbA(1c), age and diabetes duration were the best predictors of CNE change during follow-up. Therefore, improving glycaemia remains an important amenable factor in preventing worsening of diabetic polyneuropathy.

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

4.3
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