JohnEGreen
Master
- Messages
- 14,001
- Location
- Nottinghamshire
- Type of diabetes
- Other
- Treatment type
- Diet only
- Dislikes
- Tripe and Onions
Seems promising but I'm finding it difficult to gloss over this part;
"...and a different test for type 2 diabetes was introduced around 2010."
Surely that completely invalidates the data? Mind you we are talking about epidemiology here, so I guess anything goes.
I'm assuming 'the different test' that was introduced in 2010 is the fact that there was a major shift from using a fasting glucose tolerance test, to using the HbA1c. This shift was supported by the World Health Organisation in an attempt to achieve a standard, economical test.
My personal view is that the HbA1c is a very blunt instrument, though it is easier to use in a consistent manner, and is a major cost saving for the healthcare provider, it lets too many people slip through the net. Including anaemics, those with haemachromatosis and other health issues.
Interesting link to a study showing that the change in diagnostic criteria resulted in different consequences for different ethnicities, which could have very serious implications for those that are less well served by the HbA1c.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20739381
I think it means very little, if you look at graphs on diabetes rates you can see flat spots here and there and even slight dips, but the trend is still rising.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?