4.3 Article

Gastrointestinal symptoms and glycemic control in diabetes mellitus: a longitudinal population study

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MEG.0b013e3282f5f734

关键词

diabetes; gastrointestinal; glycemic control; symptoms

资金

  1. NHMRC

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background The prevalence of gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms is increased in diabetes, but their natural history is understood poorly and any impact of glycemic control is controversial. We aimed to quantity changes in GI symptom status and glycemic control among a population sample of patients with diabetes. Methods Data on 10 chronic GI symptom complexes were obtained from a validated questionnaire at baseline and after 12 months. Changes in acute and chronic glycemic control were classified as always adequate, variable (deteriorated or improved), or always inadequate; acute glycemic control was assessed by fasting plasma glucose and chronic glycemic control by a validated self-report 5-point graded scale. Results Baseline and follow-up data were available in 136 individuals with diabetes (mean age 59 years; 66% males; 95% type 2). The most prevalent GI symptom complexes were abdominal bloating/distension (35%), ulcer-like dyspepsia (35%), and irritable bowel syndrome (27%). Overall, between 7 and 24% reported a change in GI symptoms with the largest change in irritable bowel syndrome (24%), bloating/distension (22%), and ulcer-like dyspepsia (21%). Those who had a change in abdominal bloating (either loss or gain) over 12 months were more likely to have increased their mean fasting plasma glucose (P < 0.05). Contrary to expectations, consistently poor self-reported glycemic control was only weakly associated with less persistent abdominal pain (r= -0.2, P=0.03), diarrhea (r= -0.22, P=0.01), and abdominal bloating (r= -0.2, P=0.03). Acute glycemic control was not significantly related to any GI symptoms. Conclusion We were unable to demonstrate any association between worsening GI symptoms and glycemic control.

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

4.3
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