4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

The epidemiology and management of diabetes mellitus in Indonesia

期刊

DIABETES RESEARCH AND CLINICAL PRACTICE
卷 50, 期 -, 页码 S9-S16

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0168-8227(00)00173-X

关键词

epidemiology; Indonesian diabetes management

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Predications indicate a potentially explosive increase in the prevalence of diabetes worldwide, especially in developing countries such as Indonesia. Studies of people living in rural areas of East Java and Pall show a prevalence rate of 1.5% in 1982 to 5.7% in 1995 among the urban population. Ujung Pandnag also experienced an increase and recent studies in Manado found a dramatically high rate of 6.1% in urban areas. Preliminary results indicate varying prevalence between those living in urban and rural areas. Currently, Indonesia has an estimated 1.2-2.3% prevalence among people over 15 years. Geographically Variation appears to be an influential factor, due to differences in ethnics, race, culture and lifestyle. Studies of diabetic families show a significantly high prevalence and, clinically speaking, the mode of treatment indicates the type of diabetes. Those who respond well to OHA among young diabetics (< 40) are assumed to have the MODY variation of the disease. The level of obesity among the general population has increased, due partly to increased calorie intake and is a significant factor in the increased rate of diabetes. It is also more common among the elderly, as our results will show. The new types of the disease are clinically more difficult to assess than the classical types 1 and 2, as they require relatively costly genetic and immunological studies. The rate of LADA type diabetes was found to be relatively high (> 20% for ICA and IAA, and 2.3% for GADA). A consensus on diabetes management has now been formulated in Indonesia and these guidelines are now used by all Indonesian health care professionals. (C) 2000 Elsevier Science Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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