Age-sex-adjusted relative risks of ESRD due to all causes between diabetic and non-diabetic populations.

<p>ESRD, end-stage renal disease. Confidence intervals (CI) were not shown as not all studies reported incidence rates of ESRD with the corresponding 95% CIs.</p

Incidence and relative risk of stroke in the diabetic and the non-diabetic population between 1998 and 2014: A community-based stroke register

<div><p>One major objective of the St. Vincent Declaration was to reduce excess risk of stroke in people with diabetes mellitus. The aim of this study is to estimate the trend of incidence and relative risk of stroke in the diabetic and the non-diabetic populations in Germany over a 17-year period. We estimated age–sex standardised incidence rates of all stroke and ischaemic stroke in people with and without diabetes based on an ongoing prospective community-based stroke register covering 105,000 inhabitants. Time trends were analysed using Poisson regression. In total, 3,111 individuals (diabetes: 28.4%, men 46.9%, mean age 73.1 years (SD 13.2)) had a first stroke, 84.9% of which were ischaemic stroke. Among people with diabetes we observed a significant reduction in all stroke incidence by 1.5% per year (relative risk: 0.985; 95% confidence interval 0.972–0.9995) Likewise, this incidence tended to decrease for ischaemic stroke by 1% per year (0.993; 0.979–1.008). In contrast, the incidence rate for all stroke remained nearly stable among people without diabetes (1.003; 0.993–1.013) and for ischaemic stroke (1.002; 0.991–1.013). The relative risk comparing diabetic and non-diabetic population decreased for all stroke (two percent annual reduction) but not for ischaemic stroke. Time trends were similar for both sexes regarding all and ischaemic strokes. We found a reduction in risk of stroke in the diabetic population while this rate did not materially change in the non-diabetic population.</p></div

Time trend of age-adjusted incidence rates of ESRD due to diabetic nephropathy.

<p>ESRD, end-stage renal disease; IR, incidence rate. Confidence intervals (CI) were not shown as not all studies reported incidence rates of ESRD with the corresponding 95% CIs.</p

Results of Poisson models^*: Relative risks for Stroke, Erlangen, 1998–2014.

<p>Results of Poisson models^{<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0188306#t002fn001" target="_blank">*</a>}: Relative risks for Stroke, Erlangen, 1998–2014.</p

Description of persons with first stroke, and the background population, Erlangen, 1998–2014.

<p>Description of persons with first stroke, and the background population, Erlangen, 1998–2014.</p

Age–sex standardised incidence rate of ischaemic stroke with and without diabetes in the female population.

<p>Continuous lines = persons with diabetes; dotted lines = persons without diabetes; x-axis: calendar year; y-axis: incidence rate per 100,000 person years.</p

Age–sex standardised incidence rate of ischaemic stroke with and without diabetes in the total population.

<p>Continuous lines = persons with diabetes; dotted lines = persons without diabetes; x-axis: calendar year; y-axis: incidence rate per 100,000 person years.</p

Age–sex standardised incidence rate of stroke with and without diabetes in the total population.

<p>Continuous lines = persons with diabetes; dotted lines = persons without diabetes; x-axis: calendar year; y-axis: incidence rate per 100,000 person years.</p

Age–sex standardised incidence rate of stroke with and without diabetes in the male population.

<p>Continuous lines = persons with diabetes; dotted lines = persons without diabetes; x-axis: calendar year; y-axis: incidence rate per 100,000 person years.</p

Incidence of lower extremity amputations in the diabetic compared with the non-diabetic population: A systematic review

<div><p>Lower extremity amputation (LEA) in patients with diabetes results in high mortality, reduced quality of life, and increased medical costs. Exact data on incidences of LEA in diabetic and non-diabetic patients are important for improvements in preventative diabetic foot care, avoidance of fatal outcomes, as well as a solid basis for health policy and the economy. However, published data are conflicting, underlining the necessity for the present systematic review of population-based studies on incidence, relative risks and changes of amputation rates over time. It was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Nineteen out of 1582 studies retrieved were included in the analysis. The incidence of LEA in the diabetic population ranged from 78 to 704 per 100,000 person-years and the relative risks between diabetic and non-diabetic patients varied between 7.4 and 41.3. Study designs, statistical methods, definitions of major and minor amputations, as well as the methods to identify patients with diabetes differed greatly, explaining in part these considerable differences. Some studies found a decrease in incidence of LEA as well as relative risks over time. This obvious lack of evidence should be overcome by new studies using a standardized design with comparable methods and definitions.</p><p>Systematic review registration number</p><p>PROSPERO <a href="https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/CRD4201501780" target="_blank">CRD4201501780</a></p></div