Primary care diabetes · 2020
Prevalence of peripheral neuropathy in patients with diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sun Juan, Wang Ya, Zhang Xiaoyi, Zhu Shengze, He Hong
Аннотация
AIMS: We aimed to determine pooled prevalence of diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) in patients with diabetes and to explore the impacts of research variables on prevalence estimates.
METHODS: A systematic search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and Scopus from onset up to July 2018 to identify articles investigating the prevalence of DPN. Random-effects models were used to calculate the pooled prevalence of DPN. The heterogeneity of the study was estimated with the I2 statistic. The publication bias was described by Egger's test and funnel plot.
RESULTS: A total of 29 studies with a total of 50,112 participants were included in this meta-analysis. The results showed that the pooled prevalence of DPN was 30% (95% confidence interval, CI 25-34%). The pooled prevalence of DPN among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus was higher than patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (31.5%, 95% CI 24.4-38.6% vs 17.5%, 95% CI 4.8-30.2%). The pooled prevalence of DPN of studies involving a mixed type of diabetes mellitus was 24.8% (95% CI 13.1-36.5%, I2=99.1%).
CONCLUSIONS: Medical staff should strengthen the evaluation and diagnosis of DPN. Moreover, they need to teach diabetic patients how to prevent this complication.
METHODS: A systematic search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and Scopus from onset up to July 2018 to identify articles investigating the prevalence of DPN. Random-effects models were used to calculate the pooled prevalence of DPN. The heterogeneity of the study was estimated with the I2 statistic. The publication bias was described by Egger's test and funnel plot.
RESULTS: A total of 29 studies with a total of 50,112 participants were included in this meta-analysis. The results showed that the pooled prevalence of DPN was 30% (95% confidence interval, CI 25-34%). The pooled prevalence of DPN among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus was higher than patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (31.5%, 95% CI 24.4-38.6% vs 17.5%, 95% CI 4.8-30.2%). The pooled prevalence of DPN of studies involving a mixed type of diabetes mellitus was 24.8% (95% CI 13.1-36.5%, I2=99.1%).
CONCLUSIONS: Medical staff should strengthen the evaluation and diagnosis of DPN. Moreover, they need to teach diabetic patients how to prevent this complication.