4.6 Article

Parity and the Risk of Diabetes Mellitus among Chinese Women: A Cross-Sectional Evidence from the Tongji-Dongfeng Cohort Study

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 9, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0104810

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81273083]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [2012TS071]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Little is known about the long-term health impact of pregnancy on women. The objective of this study was to examine the association between parity and the risk of diabetes among a population of Chinese women. Study design: A total of 14,196 women (aged >= 45 years) from the Dongfeng-Tongji Cohort study who had experienced at least one live birth completed baseline questionnaires, medical examinations, and provided baseline blood samples. Participants were categorized into four groups according to parity (one, two, three, or four or more live births). Logistic regression models were used to investigate the association between parity and the risk of diabetes after controlling potential confounders. Results: The prevalence of diabetes in the study population was 18.0% (2,552/14,196). Fasting plasma glucose levels increased with the increasing number of live births (P<0.001) and parity had a positive graded association with diabetes without adjustment for any covariates (P for trend <0.001). After adjusting for potential confounders, women who had had two, three, and four or more live births had 1.35 times (95% CI, 1.20-1.52), 1.59 times (95% CI, 1.39-1.82) and 1.44 times (95% CI, 1.21-1.71), respectively, higher risk of diabetes compared with women who had had one live birth. Conclusion: Multiparity was associated with increasing risk of diabetes in this population of Chinese women. These findings suggested that multiparity may be a risk factor for the development of diabetes among Chinese women. Future studies are needed to examine the physiological changes during pregnancy for risk of diabetes in later life.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据