M Abdelgadir1, M Elbagir, M Eltom, C Berne. 1. Department of Medical Sciences, Uppsala University Hospital, Sweden. moawia.abdelgadir@medsci.uu.se
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the influence of self-monitoring of glucose on the glycaemic control in Sudanese diabetic subjects. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A group of 193 consecutive type 2 and type 1 diabetic subjects (95 men, 98 women) were studied. In 104 subjects with type 2 diabetes fasting blood glucose was measured using a glucose meter and blood was obtained for serum glucose measurement in the laboratory. In the remaining 89 diabetic subjects random blood glucose was measured using the same glucose meter and a whole blood sample was drawn for laboratory assessment of HbA1c. Data on self-monitoring and other clinical and personal characteristics were recorded. RESULTS: More than 75% of either type 1 and type 2 diabetic patients never self-monitored blood or urine glucose. In type 2 diabetic subjects self-monitoring of blood or urine glucose was not related to glycaemic control. In type 1 diabetic subjects, however, self-monitoring of blood glucose was significantly associated with better glycaemic control, as assessed by HbA1c (P=0.02) and blood glucose at clinic visits (P< or =0.0001), and similar associations were found for urine glucose self-monitoring (P=0.04 and 0.02) respectively. Neither glycaemic control nor glucose self-monitoring was associated with education level. CONCLUSIONS: Self-monitoring of blood glucose was not found to be associated to better glycaemic control in Sudanese subjects with type 2 diabetes. In contrast, self-monitoring of both blood and urine glucose was significantly associated with glycaemic control in subjects with type 1 diabetes. Self-monitoring of urine glucose could be useful where measurement of blood glucose is not available or affordable.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the influence of self-monitoring of glucose on the glycaemic control in Sudanese diabetic subjects. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A group of 193 consecutive type 2 and type 1 diabetic subjects (95 men, 98 women) were studied. In 104 subjects with type 2 diabetes fasting blood glucose was measured using a glucose meter and blood was obtained for serum glucose measurement in the laboratory. In the remaining 89 diabetic subjects random blood glucose was measured using the same glucose meter and a whole blood sample was drawn for laboratory assessment of HbA1c. Data on self-monitoring and other clinical and personal characteristics were recorded. RESULTS: More than 75% of either type 1 and type 2 diabeticpatients never self-monitored blood or urine glucose. In type 2 diabetic subjects self-monitoring of blood or urine glucose was not related to glycaemic control. In type 1 diabetic subjects, however, self-monitoring of blood glucose was significantly associated with better glycaemic control, as assessed by HbA1c (P=0.02) and blood glucose at clinic visits (P< or =0.0001), and similar associations were found for urine glucose self-monitoring (P=0.04 and 0.02) respectively. Neither glycaemic control nor glucose self-monitoring was associated with education level. CONCLUSIONS: Self-monitoring of blood glucose was not found to be associated to better glycaemic control in Sudanese subjects with type 2 diabetes. In contrast, self-monitoring of both blood and urine glucose was significantly associated with glycaemic control in subjects with type 1 diabetes. Self-monitoring of urine glucose could be useful where measurement of blood glucose is not available or affordable.
Authors: Ahmed O Almobarak; Sufian K Noor; Wadie M Elmadhoun; Sarra O Bushara; Reham S Salim; Sittana A Forawi; Heitham Awadalla; Einas S Elwali; Mohamed H Ahmed Journal: J Family Med Prim Care Date: 2017 Apr-Jun
Authors: Hasaan G Mohamed; Shaza B Idris; Mutaz F Ahmed; Anne N Åstrøm; Kamal Mustafa; Salah O Ibrahim; Manal Mustafa Journal: BMC Oral Health Date: 2015-07-27 Impact factor: 2.757
Authors: Hasaan G Mohamed; Shaza B Idris; Mutaz F Ahmed; Olav E Bøe; Kamal Mustafa; Salah O Ibrahim; Anne N Astrøm Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-12-11 Impact factor: 3.240