HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Cowie, C. C. Articles by Gregg, E. W. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Cowie, C. C. Articles by Gregg, E. W. Social Bookmarking                What's this?

Prevalence of Diabetes and Impaired Fasting Glucose in Adults in the U.S. Population

National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1999–2002

¹ National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
² National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Westat, Rockville, Maryland
³ Social and Scientific Systems, Silver Spring, Maryland
⁴ National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Hyattsville, Maryland
⁵ Division of Diabetes Translation, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Catherine C. Cowie, PhD, Director, Diabetes Epidemiology Program, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, 6707 Democracy Blvd., Rm. 691, MSC 5460, Bethesda, MD 20892-5460. E-mail: cowiec{at}mail.nih.gov

	ABSTRACT

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS RESULTS CONCLUSIONS References

 
OBJECTIVE—The purpose of this study was to examine the prevalences of diagnosed and undiagnosed diabetes, and impaired fasting glucose (IFG) in U.S. adults during 1999–2002, and compare prevalences to those in 1988–1994.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) contains a probability sample of adults aged 20 years. In the NHANES 1999–2002, 4,761 adults were classified on glycemic status using standard criteria, based on an interview for diagnosed diabetes and fasting plasma glucose measured in a subsample.

RESULTS—The crude prevalence of total diabetes in 1999–2002 was 9.3% (19.3 million, 2002 U.S. population), consisting of 6.5% diagnosed and 2.8% undiagnosed. An additional 26.0% had IFG, totaling 35.3% (73.3 million) with either diabetes or IFG. The prevalence of total diabetes rose with age, reaching 21.6% for those aged 65 years. The prevalence of diagnosed diabetes was twice as high in non-Hispanic blacks and Mexican Americans compared with non-Hispanic whites (both P < 0.00001), whereas the prevalence of undiagnosed diabetes was similar by race/ethnicity, adjusted for age and sex. The prevalence of diagnosed diabetes was similar by sex, but prevalences of undiagnosed diabetes and IFG were significantly higher in men. The crude prevalence of diagnosed diabetes rose significantly from 5.1% in 1988–1994 to 6.5% in 1999–2002, but the crude prevalences were stable for undiagnosed diabetes (from 2.7 to 2.8%) and IFG (from 24.7 to 26.0%). Results were similar after adjustment for age and sex.

CONCLUSIONS—Although the prevalence of diagnosed diabetes has increased significantly over the last decade, the prevalences of undiagnosed diabetes and IFG have remained relatively stable. Minority groups remain disproportionately affected.

Abbreviations: FPG, fasting plasma glucose • IFG, impaired fasting glucose • IGT, impaired glucose tolerance • NHANES, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey

	INTRODUCTION

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS RESULTS CONCLUSIONS References

 
Diabetes and its complications are major causes of morbidity and mortality in the U.S. (1). The economic cost of diabetes in medical expenditures and lost productivity was estimated to be $132 billion in the U.S. in 2002 (2). Nationally the prevalence of self-reported diagnosed diabetes has steadily increased over time (3), but the extent to which this increase is due to enhanced detection is uncertain. Undiagnosed diabetes and impaired fasting glucose (IFG) also have important health consequences (4,5). Only one nationally representative survey, The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), examines both diagnosed diabetes and undiagnosed diabetes. This survey showed that from 1988 to 1994, undiagnosed diabetes comprised approximately one-third of total diabetes (diagnosed and undiagnosed) in U.S. adults (6). The prevalence of IFG was nearly as high as the prevalence of total diabetes. In 1999, the NHANES became a continuous annual survey with data released every 2 years, and we reported the prevalence of diagnosed diabetes, undiagnosed diabetes, and IFG in adults based on data from 1999 to 2000 (7). The limited sample size in these 2 years, however, restricted the detail and reliability of our analyses. New criteria for defining IFG have since been adopted (8,9), and only limited estimates of the prevalence of IFG based on this new definition have been reported using the 2 years of data from NHANES 1999 to 2000 (10).

In this report, we analyze the prevalence of diagnosed diabetes, undiagnosed diabetes, and IFG in adults in the U.S. using 4 years of the NHANES data (1999–2002). Results are examined in detail according to age, sex, and race/ethnicity. We compare these prevalence estimates to those from the NHANES 1988–1994.

	RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS RESULTS CONCLUSIONS References

 
The NHANES 1999–2002 was conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics (11). The survey is designed to be representative of the U.S. civilian noninstitutionalized population, on the basis of a complex, multistage probability sample. Survey participants are interviewed in their homes and subsequently receive a physical and laboratory examination in a mobile examination center. Among eligible subjects, 83.0% were interviewed and 78.0% were examined.

In 1999–2002, 10,291 individuals aged 20 years completed the household interview. Questions covered demographic characteristics and medical conditions, including a history of diabetes. Specifically, individuals were asked if, other than during pregnancy for women, a doctor or health care professional had ever told them they had diabetes. Based on this question, 991 individuals aged 20 years were classified as having diagnosed diabetes. Three additional individuals were excluded from analyses because of missing diabetes information.

Each household was randomly assigned to either a morning or afternoon/evening examination session. There were 4,271 individuals aged 20 years without diagnosed diabetes who were assigned to a morning session, and plasma glucose values were obtained from 3,770 (88.3%) of them after they fasted for 8 to <24 h. This group is subsequently referred to as the plasma glucose subsample. Recommendations for the diagnosis of diabetes are based on studies of plasma glucose measured after an overnight fast (9). Pregnant women (n = 236) were included, and none had undiagnosed diabetes based on their fasting plasma glucose (FPG) values. Plasma glucose values were not analyzed for 420 people with invalid or unknown fasting times and 81 people with unknown glucose values.

The procedures for blood collection and processing are described elsewhere (11). Plasma glucose was measured at a central laboratory using a hexokinase enzymatic method, with a coefficient of variation of <3% during the 4 years of the survey. Standard diagnostic criteria were used to categorize people without diagnosed diabetes as to whether they had undiagnosed diabetes (FPG 7.0 mmol/l) or IFG (FPG 5.6 to <7.0 mmol/l) (9). Race/ethnicity was categorized according to NHANES guidelines to allow comparison across the surveys (11). Age was categorized as 60 years for consistency with NHANES guidelines (11) and 65 years to provide findings relevant to the Medicare population.

Estimates from the NHANES 1999–2002 are compared with those from the NHANES III conducted during 1988–1994. The NHANES III used similar interview questions on previous diagnosis of diabetes (6,11). The same collection methods and laboratory were used for all specimens to determine FPG concentration (11).

Sampling weights were used to provide estimates that are representative of the U.S. population (11). For the NHANES 1999–2002, individuals with diagnosed diabetes from the entire interviewed sample were combined with individuals without diagnosed diabetes from the plasma glucose subsample. Appropriate sampling weights were used so that the sum of the sample weights from the two groups added to the total U.S. population. For the NHANES 1988–1994, prevalences of normal fasting glucose, undiagnosed diabetes, and IFG in the subsample of people without diagnosed diabetes were each adjusted for the prevalence of diagnosed diabetes from the interview sample, so that the sum of all diagnostic categories added to the total U.S. population (12). This difference in approach for NHANES 1988–1994 was required because the plasma glucose subsample weights for that survey did not account for some individuals having invalid or unknown fasting times or unknown plasma glucose values.

To account for different age and sex distributions between groups and over time, we derived estimates that were age- and sex-standardized to the U.S. 2000 Census population using the direct method, with age categories of 20–39, 40–59, and 60 years. SUDAAN (13) was used to calculate SEs in the NHANES 1999–2002 based on the Taylor Series linearization method (14). For the NHANES 1988–1994, variance estimates were based on Fay’s modified balanced repeated replication (15), an alternative method that is preferred for the data provided in the NHANES 1988–1994. A SAS routine was written specifically for these analyses.

CIs were calculated for the logit of each estimated percentage, and then the end points were back-transformed (16). A one-sample t test was used for testing whether differences between subgroups in proportions in the NHANES 1999–2002 were significantly different from zero. Two-sample t tests were used to test differences in proportions between the two surveys. A P value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant. When we compared estimates among subgroups or within subgroups over time, no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons in determining the statistical significance of differences.

	RESULTS

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS RESULTS CONCLUSIONS References

 
Diagnosed diabetes
The prevalence of diagnosed diabetes ascertained by interview in adults aged 20 years in 1999–2002 is shown in Table 1. Overall the crude prevalence was 6.5% for the total population, 5.6% in non-Hispanic whites, 10.0% in non-Hispanic blacks, and 6.5% in Mexican Americans. The prevalence generally rose with age in all race/ethnic groups and sex-groups, reaching 15.8% at ages 65 years for the total population. The overall crude prevalence was similar for men (6.7%) and women (6.3%).

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   Table 1— Crude and standardized prevalence of diagnosed diabetes in adults aged 20 years in the U.S. population, NHANES 1999–2002

Undiagnosed diabetes
The crude prevalence of undiagnosed diabetes ascertained by measurement of FPG in the NHANES 1999–2002 was 2.8% in the total population aged 20 years (Table 2). The prevalence of undiagnosed diabetes generally rose with age in all race/ethnic groups and sex-groups, reaching 5.8% overall in those aged 65 years. Although the crude percentage of individuals with undiagnosed diabetes was significantly lower in Mexican Americans than in non-Hispanic whites (1.8 vs. 2.9%, P = 0.03) and non-Hispanic blacks (1.8 vs. 3.3%, P = 0.04), standardized prevalences were similar for non-Hispanic whites, non-Hispanic blacks, and Mexican Americans. The standardized prevalence of undiagnosed diabetes was significantly higher in men than in women in the total population (3.6 vs 2.1%, P = 0.02) and in non-Hispanic whites (3.5 vs. 1.9%, P = 0.02), consistent with the higher prevalence in men across all ages in these groups. The standardized prevalence of undiagnosed diabetes, however, was not different by sex in non-Hispanic blacks and Mexican Americans.

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   Table 2— Crude and standardized prevalence of undiagnosed diabetes in adults aged 20 years in the U.S. population, 1999–2002

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   Table 3— Crude and standardized prevalence of IFG in adults age 20 years in the U.S. population, 1999–2002

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   Table 4— Prevalence of diabetes and IFG in adults aged 20 years in the U.S. population, NHANES 1988–1994 and 1999–2002

	CONCLUSIONS

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS RESULTS CONCLUSIONS References

 
Diabetes affects a substantial proportion of the U.S. population. Based on data from the NHANES 1999–2002, 9.3% of persons aged 20 years had either diagnosed or undiagnosed diabetes, representing an estimated 19.3 million persons in 2002. This percentage rose to 21.6% in those aged 65 years. About one-third (30.1%) of diabetes was undiagnosed. An additional 26.0% of adults had IFG, a condition that increases the risk for diabetes and is associated with other cardiovascular risk factors (5). Thus, a combined total of 35.3% of the adult U.S. population (73.3 million persons) had diabetes or IFG. The prevalence of diagnosed diabetes has increased significantly from 1988–1994 to 1999–2002, yet prevalences of undiagnosed diabetes and IFG have remained relatively stable. Considerable variation by race/ethnicity and sex in the prevalences of diabetes and IFG continues to exist, once adjustments are made for differing age/sex distributions.

Our point estimates, which are based on 4 years of data, are more precise than the preliminary estimates, which were previously reported based on 2 years of data (7,10). Nevertheless, some of the estimates we report here for subgroups defined simultaneously by age, sex, and race/ethnicity are unreliable, particularly for the prevalence of undiagnosed diabetes. CI have been provided, however, to assist reader interpretation.

The FPG value is currently recommended for screening for diabetes and IFG because it is quick, easy to obtain, and acceptable to patients in clinical settings. Oral glucose tolerance tests were not performed in the NHANES 1999–2002; consequently, additional individuals with abnormal postload glucose tolerance and normal fasting glucose levels have not been identified. Although this group is unlikely to affect prevalence of diabetes substantially (8), the addition of impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) would significantly increase estimates of total pre-diabetes (IFG and IGT) (5–6,17). It should also be noted that determination of undiagnosed diabetes and IFG in the NHANES was based on a single plasma glucose reading from subjects who self-reported that they fasted appropriately; this result may not be duplicated upon retesting as suggested for diagnosis in a clinical setting. Consequently, some of the prevalence estimates may be overstated. There are no better surveys, however, for a national assessment of diabetes and pre-diabetes using current diagnostic criteria.

Although the increase in total diabetes over the last decade was not statistically significant, the prevalence did rise significantly in men and in non-Hispanic blacks. Overweight and obesity have also risen over the last decade (18). Available data are not sufficient to investigate whether this association might be causal.

Currently, non-Hispanic blacks and Mexican Americans have almost twice the standardized prevalence of total diabetes of non-Hispanic whites, and no evidence indicates that this differential has declined over the last decade. Clearly, however, the proportion of total diabetes that is undiagnosed is no greater in non-Hispanic blacks and Mexican Americans than in non-Hispanic whites. In fact, the data suggest the possibility that the proportion that is undiagnosed in these groups has decreased over the last decade. Possible explanations for such a decrease are lacking. Decreases over the past several decades in the proportion of diabetes that is undiagnosed have occurred only among the most obese (19).

We found a higher prevalence of both diagnosed and undiagnosed diabetes in men than in women among non-Hispanic whites, but a similar prevalence by sex among non-Hispanic blacks and Mexican Americans. Whether this difference by race/ethnicity is a function of higher prevalences of overweight and obesity among non-Hispanic black and Mexican- American women (18) may warrant further research.

Interestingly, the prevalence of IFG in non-Hispanic blacks was substantially lower than that in non-Hispanic whites and Mexican Americans, despite the prevalence of diagnosed diabetes in non-Hispanic blacks being twice as high as that in non-Hispanic whites and similar to that in Mexican Americans. This finding also merits further research.

Lifestyle modification such as weight management and increased physical activity reduces the risk of diabetes among persons with IGT (20). However, there are no signs that obesity is abating (18), and features of insulin resistance are evident in adolescents with IFG (21). The prevalence of diagnosed diabetes has increased significantly over the last decade. Although the prevalences of undiagnosed diabetes and IFG have remained relatively stable, the current prevalences of total diabetes and IFG are excessive relative to national health objectives (22), particularly in minority groups.

	Footnotes

 
A table elsewhere in this issue shows conventional and Système International (SI) units and conversion factors for many substances.

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

Received for publication January 9, 2006. Accepted for publication February 27, 2006.

	References

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS RESULTS CONCLUSIONS References

 

1. Harris MI: Diabetes in America: epidemiology and scope of the problem. Diabetes Care 21(Suppl. 3):C11–C14, 1998
   
2. American Diabetes Association: Economic costs of diabetes in the U.S. in 2002. Diabetes Care 26:917–932, 2003[Abstract/Free Full Text]
   
3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion: Data and trends: National Diabetes Surveillance System: prevalence of diabetes. Available from http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/statistics/prev/national/figage.htm. Accessed 9 January 2006
   
4. Harris MI, Eastman RC: Early detection of undiagnosed diabetes mellitus: a US perspective. Diabete Metab Res Rev 16:228–229, 2000
   
5. Unwin N, Shaw J, Zimmet P, Alberti KGMM: Impaired glucose tolerance and impaired fasting glycaemia: the current status on definition and intervention. Diabet Med 19:708–723, 2002[Medline]
   
6. Harris MI, Flegal KM, Cowie CC, Eberhardt MS, Goldstein DE, Little RR, Wiedmeyer HM, Byrd-Holt DD: Prevalence of diabetes, impaired fasting glucose, and impaired glucose tolerance in US adults: The Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988–1994. Diabetes Care 21:518–524, 1998[Abstract]
   
7. Cowie CC, Rust KF, Byrd-Holt D, Eberhardt MS, Saydah S, Geiss LS, Engelgau MM, Ford ES, Gregg EW: Prevalence of diabetes and impaired fasting glucose in adults: United States, 1999–2000. MMWR 52:833–837, 2003[Medline]
   
8. Expert Committee on the Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus: Follow-up report on the diagnosis of diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care 26:3160–3167, 2003[Free Full Text]
   
9. American Diabetes Association: Diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care 27(Suppl. 1):S5–S10, 2004
   
10. Davidson MB, Landsman PB, Alexander CM: Lowering the criterion for impaired fasting glucose will not provide clinical benefit. Diabetes Care 26:3329–3330, 2003[Free Full Text]
    
11. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data sets and related documentation (Survey Questionnaire, Examination and Laboratory Protocols, 1988–1994 and 1999–2002). Available at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/major/nhanes/datalink.htm. Accessed 9 January 2006
    
12. Flegal KM, Ezzati TM, Harris MI, Haynes SG, Juarez RZ, Knowler WC, Perez-Stable EJ, Stern MP: Prevalence of diabetes in Mexican Americans, Cubans, and Puerto Ricans from the Hispanic Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1982–1984. Diabetes Care 14:628–638, 1991[Abstract]
    
13. Research Triangle Institute: SUDAAN User’s Manual, release 9.0.1. Research Triangle Park, NC, Research Triangle Institute, 2005
    
14. LaVange LM, Stearns SC, Lafata JE, Koch GG, Shah BV: Innovative strategies using SUDAAN for analysis of health surveys with complex samples. Stat Methods Med Res 5:311–329, 1996[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
15. Rust KF, Rao JNK: Variance estimation for complex surveys using replication techniques. Stat Methods Med Res 5:283–310, 1996[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
16. Stone CJ: A course in Probability and Statistics. Belmont, CA, Duxbury, 1995, p. 667
    
17. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases: National diabetes statistics fact sheet, 2005. Bethesda, MD, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, 2005
    
18. Flegal KM, Carroll MD, Ogden CL, Johnson CL: Prevalence and trends in obesity among US adults, 1999–2000. JAMA 288:1723–1727, 2002[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
19. Gregg EW, Cadwell BL, Cheng YJ, Cowie CC, Williams DE, Geiss L, Engelgau MM, Vinicor F: Trends in the prevalence and ratio of diagnosed to undiagnosed diabetes according to obesity levels in the U.S. Diabetes Care 27:2806–2812, 2004[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
20. Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group: Reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes with lifestyle intervention or metformin. N Engl J Med 346:393–403, 2002[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
21. Williams DE, Cadwell BL, Cheng YL, Cowie CC, Gregg EW, Geiss LS, Engelgau MM, Venkat Narayan KM, Imperatore G: Prevalence of impaired fasting glucose and its relationship with cardiovascular disease risk factors in U.S. adolescents, 1999–2000. Pediatrics 116:1122–1126, 2005[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
22. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion: Healthy People 2010. Available at http://www.healthypeople.gov/default.htm. Accessed 9 January 2006
    

CiteULike

Del.icio.us

Digg

Reddit

Technorati

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. J. Gibbons, D. W. Jones, T. J. Gardner, L. B. Goldstein, J. H. Moller, and C. W. Yancy The American Heart Association's 2008 Statement of Principles for Healthcare Reform Circulation, November 18, 2008; 118(21): 2209 - 2218. [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. C. Plantinga, L. E. Boulware, J. Coresh, L. A. Stevens, E. R. Miller III, R. Saran, K. L. Messer, A. S. Levey, and N. R. Powe Patient Awareness of Chronic Kidney Disease: Trends and Predictors Arch Intern Med, November 10, 2008; 168(20): 2268 - 2275. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. Roman and P. S. Zeitler Oral Glucose Tolerance Testing in Asymptomatic Obese Children: More Questions than Answers J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., November 1, 2008; 93(11): 4228 - 4230. [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. J. Koopman, A. G. Mainous III, C. J. Everett, and R. E. Carter Tool to Assess Likelihood of Fasting Glucose ImpairmenT (TAG-IT) Ann. Fam. Med, November 1, 2008; 6(6): 555 - 561. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. S Brach, J. B Talkowski, E. S Strotmeyer, and A. B Newman Diabetes Mellitus and Gait Dysfunction: Possible Explanatory Factors Physical Therapy, November 1, 2008; 88(11): 1365 - 1374. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. S Kirkness, R. L Marcus, P. C LaStayo, C. V Asche, and J. M Fritz Diabetes and Associated Risk Factors in Patients Referred for Physical Therapy in a National Primary Care Electronic Medical Record Database Physical Therapy, November 1, 2008; 88(11): 1408 - 1416. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M.-h. Chang, M. L. Lindegren, M. A. Butler, S. J. Chanock, N. F. Dowling, M. Gallagher, R. Moonesinghe, C. A. Moore, R. M. Ned, M. R. Reichler, et al. Prevalence in the United States of Selected Candidate Gene Variants: Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1991-1994 Am. J. Epidemiol., October 20, 2008; (2008) kwn286v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. L. Rosenzweig, E. Ferrannini, S. M. Grundy, S. M. Haffner, R. J. Heine, E. S. Horton, and R. Kawamori Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease and Type 2 Diabetes in Patients at Metabolic Risk: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., October 1, 2008; 93(10): 3671 - 3689. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E Goyder, S Wild, C Fischbacher, J Carlisle, and J Peters Evaluating the impact of a national pilot screening programme for type 2 diabetes in deprived areas of England Fam. Pract., October 1, 2008; 25(5): 370 - 375. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				Q. M. Nguyen, S. R. Srinivasan, J.-H. Xu, W. Chen, and G. S. Berenson Changes in Risk Variables of Metabolic Syndrome Since Childhood in Pre-Diabetic and Type 2 Diabetic Subjects: The Bogalusa Heart Study Diabetes Care, October 1, 2008; 31(10): 2044 - 2049. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. R. Smith, K. Bae, J. A. Efstathiou, G. E. Hanks, M. V. Pilepich, H. M. Sandler, and W. U. Shipley Diabetes and Mortality in Men With Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer: RTOG 92-02 J. Clin. Oncol., September 10, 2008; 26(26): 4333 - 4339. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. R. Shah Utilization of physician services for diabetic patients from ethnic minorities J. Public Health Med., September 1, 2008; 30(3): 327 - 331. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. Mezuk, W. W. Eaton, S. H. Golden, and Y. Ding The Influence of Educational Attainment on Depression and Risk of Type 2 Diabetes Am J Public Health, August 1, 2008; 98(8): 1480 - 1485. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. Moll, J.C. Korevaar, P.M.M. Bossuyt, and F. van der Veen Does adding metformin to clomifene citrate lead to higher pregnancy rates in a subset of women with polycystic ovary syndrome? Hum. Reprod., August 1, 2008; 23(8): 1830 - 1834. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				N. R. Kandula, A. V. Diez-Roux, C. Chan, M. L. Daviglus, S. A. Jackson, H. Ni, and P. J. Schreiner Association of Acculturation Levels and Prevalence of Diabetes in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) Diabetes Care, August 1, 2008; 31(8): 1621 - 1628. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. S. Stote and D. J. Baer Tea Consumption May Improve Biomarkers of Insulin Sensitivity and Risk Factors for Diabetes J. Nutr., August 1, 2008; 138(8): 1584S - 1588S. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. A. Molenaar, S.-J. Hwang, R. S. Vasan, D. E. Grobbee, J. B. Meigs, R. B. D'Agostino Sr., D. Levy, and C. S. Fox Burden and Rates of Treatment and Control of Cardiovascular Disease Risk Factors in Obesity: The Framingham Heart Study Diabetes Care, July 1, 2008; 31(7): 1367 - 1372. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. E. Bainbridge, H. J. Hoffman, and C. C. Cowie Diabetes and Hearing Impairment in the United States: Audiometric Evidence from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1999 to 2004 Ann Intern Med, July 1, 2008; 149(1): 1 - 10. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Screening for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Adults: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement Ann Intern Med, June 3, 2008; 148(11): 846 - 854. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. L. Norris, D. Kansagara, C. Bougatsos, and R. Fu Screening Adults for Type 2 Diabetes: A Review of the Evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Ann Intern Med, June 3, 2008; 148(11): 855 - 868. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. Marshall, F. Frech-Tamas, J. Wogen, and J. J. Doyle Blood Pressure Control Among Diabetes Patients Within a Managed Care Setting American Journal of Medical Quality, June 1, 2008; 23(3): 201 - 207. [Abstract] [PDF]

				B. A. Frempong, M. Ricks, S. Sen, and A. E. Sumner Effect of Low-Dose Oral Contraceptives on Metabolic Risk Factors in African-American Women J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., June 1, 2008; 93(6): 2097 - 2103. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. S. Miller, K. G. Becker, V. Prabhu, and D. W. Cooke Adipocyte Gene Expression Is Altered in Formerly Obese Mice and As a Function of Diet Composition J. Nutr., June 1, 2008; 138(6): 1033 - 1038. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. H. Voeks, L. A. McClure, R. C. Go, R. J. Prineas, M. Cushman, B. M. Kissela, and J. M. Roseman Regional Differences in Diabetes as a Possible Contributor to the Geographic Disparity in Stroke Mortality: The REasons for Geographic And Racial Differences in Stroke Study Stroke, June 1, 2008; 39(6): 1675 - 1680. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Murphy and C. Wilson Breastfeeding Promotion: A Rational and Achievable Target for a Type 2 Diabetes Prevention Intervention in Native American Communities J Hum Lact, May 1, 2008; 24(2): 193 - 198. [Abstract] [PDF]

				Diabetes Educators: Implementing the Chronic Care Model The Diabetes Educator, May 1, 2008; 34(3): 451 - 456. [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. Rizza, D. Eddy, and R. Kahn Cure, Care, and Commitment: What Can We Look Forward To? Diabetes Care, May 1, 2008; 31(5): 1051 - 1059. [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. E. Heikes, D. M. Eddy, B. Arondekar, and L. Schlessinger Diabetes Risk Calculator: A simple tool for detecting undiagnosed diabetes and pre-diabetes Diabetes Care, May 1, 2008; 31(5): 1040 - 1045. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. P. Thyfault Setting the stage: possible mechanisms by which acute contraction restores insulin sensitivity in muscle Am J Physiol Regulatory Integrative Comp Physiol, April 1, 2008; 294(4): R1103 - R1110. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

A. G. Mainous III, V. A. Diaz, and M. E. Geesey<