We have located links that may give you full text access.
Artefactual inflation of type 2 diabetes prevalence in WHO STEP surveys.
Tropical Medicine & International Health 2019 Februrary 2
OBJECTIVES: In view of erroneous type 2 diabetes prevalence reported in 3 small Pacific Island countries, a study was conducted to investigate whether this error occurred in other countries which have conducted WHO STEPS surveys associated with glucose thresholds for point-of-care (POC) measuring devices calibrated to plasma.
METHODS: Published STEPS surveys conducted over 2001-2017 were obtained. For each survey, information was obtained on diabetes prevalence, POC glucose measuring device, blood sample tested, and the fasting glucose threshold used for prevalence calculations. POC device user manuals were obtained to determine calibration. The current WHO glucose threshold for type 2 diabetes was used: ≥7.0mmol/L for plasma glucose; ≥6.1mmol/L for whole blood glucose.
RESULTS: POC devices were used in 75 of the STEPS surveys identified to measure blood glucose. An incorrect glucose threshold was employed in 17 surveys (23%) to define diabetes. The correct threshold was applied in 20 surveys (27%). Estimates from meta-analysis and meta-regression show that diabetes prevalence in surveys using the incorrect glucose thresholds have prevalences 50% higher than surveys which use the correct glucose threshold. A definite conclusion could not be made for 38 surveys (51%) because of the absence or unclear information on the glucose meter and/or the threshold employed.
CONCLUSION: WHO STEPS surveys with likely incorrect published diabetes prevalences have been conducted across the globe, resulting in a 50% artefactual inflation. Inaccurate reporting of diabetes prevalence from widely cited STEPS surveys would have significant impacts on disease burden monitoring, policy development, and resource allocation. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
METHODS: Published STEPS surveys conducted over 2001-2017 were obtained. For each survey, information was obtained on diabetes prevalence, POC glucose measuring device, blood sample tested, and the fasting glucose threshold used for prevalence calculations. POC device user manuals were obtained to determine calibration. The current WHO glucose threshold for type 2 diabetes was used: ≥7.0mmol/L for plasma glucose; ≥6.1mmol/L for whole blood glucose.
RESULTS: POC devices were used in 75 of the STEPS surveys identified to measure blood glucose. An incorrect glucose threshold was employed in 17 surveys (23%) to define diabetes. The correct threshold was applied in 20 surveys (27%). Estimates from meta-analysis and meta-regression show that diabetes prevalence in surveys using the incorrect glucose thresholds have prevalences 50% higher than surveys which use the correct glucose threshold. A definite conclusion could not be made for 38 surveys (51%) because of the absence or unclear information on the glucose meter and/or the threshold employed.
CONCLUSION: WHO STEPS surveys with likely incorrect published diabetes prevalences have been conducted across the globe, resulting in a 50% artefactual inflation. Inaccurate reporting of diabetes prevalence from widely cited STEPS surveys would have significant impacts on disease burden monitoring, policy development, and resource allocation. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Full text links
Trending Papers
A Personalized Approach to the Management of Congestion in Acute Heart Failure.Heart International 2023
Potential Mechanisms of the Protective Effects of the Cardiometabolic Drugs Type-2 Sodium-Glucose Transporter Inhibitors and Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists in Heart Failure.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 Februrary 21
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app