2017
DOI: 10.5455/ijmsph.2017.1269314022017
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Screening for risk of diabetes among adult population of Raipur city using Indian diabetic risk score

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

1
1
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
1
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…15 The studies using IRDS by Panda et al and Khandhedia et al had results closer to ours with the high-risk prevalence at 17.9% and 22.8% respectively. 16,17 In the present study, IDRS was significantly higher in patients with advanced age group, females, members of the threegeneration family, hypertensive and obese individuals (p<0.05). Association of age and IDRS could be explained by the fact that IDRS scoring depends upon age.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 42%
“…15 The studies using IRDS by Panda et al and Khandhedia et al had results closer to ours with the high-risk prevalence at 17.9% and 22.8% respectively. 16,17 In the present study, IDRS was significantly higher in patients with advanced age group, females, members of the threegeneration family, hypertensive and obese individuals (p<0.05). Association of age and IDRS could be explained by the fact that IDRS scoring depends upon age.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 42%
“…22 In our study as per IDRS score high risk was found in 68 (34%) for developing diabetes whereas high-risk category percentage was lower in the studies done by Arun et al (14.9%), Panda et al (17.9%), Khandhedia et al (22.8%), and Brahmbhatt et al, revealed similar findings like our study (34%), but it was higher in the study done by Mani et al (59%). [23][24][25][26][27] In our study as per IDRS score moderate risk were 91 (45.4%). Higher percentage of population in moderate risk category was found in the study done by Sowmiya et al (50.9%), Shobha et al (56%), Arun et al (67.7%), and Khandhedia et al (66.8%).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 68%