OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of diabetes mellitus and IGT in the Funagata area of Japan. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The total eligible subjects was 1163, all were > or = 45 yr of age, and 52 were known diabetic patients. Data collected included body height, weight, and answers to medical questionnaires. A 75-g OGTT was done in the morning. WHO criteria were used to classify the current diabetes status of study participants. RESULTS: Of the 1111 scheduled for the OGTT, 868 took the test; the participation rate was 77.8%. The prevalence of diabetes was 10.5 and 12.9%, and the prevalence of IGT was 14.7 and 18.0% for men and women, respectively. The prevalence of undiagnosed diabetes (4.9%) was almost equal to that of previously diagnosed diabetes (4.5%). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of diabetes in the Funagata area was two to four times higher than that of previous reports in Japan, in which many investigators used a urinary glucose test as a preliminary test. This difference is attributed to the method of determining the prevalence of diabetes.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of diabetes mellitus and IGT in the Funagata area of Japan. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The total eligible subjects was 1163, all were > or = 45 yr of age, and 52 were known diabeticpatients. Data collected included body height, weight, and answers to medical questionnaires. A 75-g OGTT was done in the morning. WHO criteria were used to classify the current diabetes status of study participants. RESULTS: Of the 1111 scheduled for the OGTT, 868 took the test; the participation rate was 77.8%. The prevalence of diabetes was 10.5 and 12.9%, and the prevalence of IGT was 14.7 and 18.0% for men and women, respectively. The prevalence of undiagnosed diabetes (4.9%) was almost equal to that of previously diagnosed diabetes (4.5%). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of diabetes in the Funagata area was two to four times higher than that of previous reports in Japan, in which many investigators used a urinary glucose test as a preliminary test. This difference is attributed to the method of determining the prevalence of diabetes.
Authors: S Sasazuki; S Kono; I Todoroki; S Honjo; Y Sakurai; K Wakabayashi; M Nishiwaki; H Hamada; H Nishikawa; H Koga; S Ogawa; K Nakagawa Journal: Eur J Epidemiol Date: 1999-03 Impact factor: 8.082
Authors: T Nakagami; Q Qiao; B Carstensen; C Nhr-Hansen; G Hu; J Tuomilehto; B Balkau; K Borch-Johnsen Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2003-06-25 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Sang Guk Kim; Seung Won Yang; An Soo Jang; Jeong Pyeong Seo; Sang Woo Han; Chung Ho Yeom; Yong Chul Kim; Sung Hee Oh; Jung Seok Kim; Hae Sung Nam; Dong Jin Chung; Min Young Chung Journal: Korean J Intern Med Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 2.884