4.7 Article

Prevalence and Management of Diabetes in Korean Adults Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys 1998-2005

期刊

DIABETES CARE
卷 32, 期 11, 页码 2016-2020

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/dc08-2228

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea [A050463]
  2. Young Investigators at Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE - This research investigated recent changes in the prevalence and management status of diabetes among Korean adults. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS - The Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES), a nationwide survey examining the general health and nutrition status of the Korean people, was conducted in 1998, 2001, and 2005. Using the first (1998; n = 5,645), second (2001; n = 4,154), and third (2005; n = 4,628) KNHANES datasets, in the present study, we estimated the prevalence of diabetes among Korean adults (aged >= 30 years), the proportions of known cases of diabetes, and the proportions of well-controlled cases of diabetes, as defined by either the American Diabetes Association (AlC <7%) or the International Diabetes Federation guidelines (AlC <6.5%). RESULTS - In 2005, the prevalence of diabetes was estimated to be 9.1% (similar to 2.58 million people: 10.2% of men and 7.9% of women), including 6.2% with known diabetes and 2.9% with newly diagnosed diabetes. The prevalence of impaired fasting glucose was 17.4% (similar to 4.94 million people). The proportion of known cases of diabetes drastically increased from 23.2% in 1998 to 41.2% in 2001. and 68.0% in 2005 (P < 0.0001). Among known diabetic patients in 2005, 43.5 and 22.9% had AlC levels <7.0 and <6.5%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS - The overall prevalence of diabetes in Korea has not changed significantly between 1998 and 2005. Physician diagnosis and treatment rates of diabetes have significantly improved during this period, but glycemic control was still poorer than that in other developed countries.

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