High prevalence of obesity, central obesity and abnormal glucose tolerance in the middle-aged Finnish population

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>There is a worldwide increase in the prevalence of obesity and disturbances in glucose metabolism. The aim of this study was to assess the current prevalence of obesity, central obesity and abnormal glucose tolerance in Finnish population, and to investigate the associations between body mass index (BMI), waist circumference and abnormal glucose tolerance.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A cross-sectional population-based survey was conducted in Finland during October 2004 and January 2005. A total of 4500 randomly selected individuals aged 45–74 years were invited to a health examination that included an oral glucose tolerance test. The participation rate was 62% in men and 67% in women.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The prevalence of obesity was 23.5% (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 21.1–25.9) in men, and 28.0% (95% CI 25.5–30.5) in women. The overall prevalence of abnormal glucose tolerance (including type 2 diabetes, impaired glucose tolerance, or impaired fasting glucose) was 42.0% (95% CI 39.2–44.8) in men and 33.4% (95% CI 30.9–36.0) in women. The prevalence of previously unknown, screen-detected type 2 diabetes was 9.3% (95% CI 7.7–11.0) in men and 7.3% (95% CI 5.9–8.7) in women. Central obesity was associated with abnormal glucose tolerance within each of the three BMI categories normal (< 25 kg/m²), overweight (25–29 kg/m²), and obese (≥ 30 kg/m²).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In a population-based random sample of Finnish population, prevalences of obesity, central obesity and abnormal glucose tolerance were found to be high. A remarkably high number of previously undetected cases of type 2 diabetes was detected. Waist circumference is a predictor of abnormal glucose tolerance in all categories of obesity.</p

The Magpie Trial follow up study: outcome after discharge from hospital for women and children recruited to a trial comparing magnesium sulphate with placebo for pre-eclampsia

Contributing member: Caroline Crowther is listed as a member of the Magpie Trial Follow Up Study Collaborative GroupBACKGROUND: The Magpie Trial compared magnesium sulphate with placebo for women with pre-eclampsia. 10,141 women were recruited, 8804 before delivery. Overall, 9024 children were included in the analysis of outcome at discharge from hospital. Magnesium sulphate more than halved the risk of eclampsia, and probably reduced the risk of maternal death. There did not appear to be any substantive harmful effects on the baby, in the short term. It is now important to assess whether these benefits persist, and to provide adequate reassurance about longer term safety. The main objective of the Magpie Trial Follow Up Study is to assess whether in utero exposure to magnesium sulphate has a clinically important effect on the child's chance of surviving without major neurosensory disability. Other objectives are to assess long term outcome for the mother, and to develop and assess appropriate strategies for following up large numbers of children in perinatal trials. STUDY DESIGN: Follow up is only feasible in selected centres. We therefore anticipate contacting 2800–3350 families, for 2435–2915 of whom the woman was randomised before delivery. A further 280–335 children would have been eligible for follow up if they had survived. The total sample size for the children is therefore 3080–3685, 2680–3210 of whom will have been born to women randomised before delivery. Families eligible for the follow up will be contacted, and surviving children screened using the Ages and Stages Questionnaires. Children who screen positive, and a sample of those who screen negative, will whenever possible have a paediatric and neurodevelopmental assessment. When women are contacted to ask how their child is, they will also be asked about their own health. The primary outcome is a composite measure of death or neurosensory disability for the child at 18 months. DISCUSSION: The Follow Up Study began in 2002, and now involves collaborators in 19 countries. Data collection will close at the end of 2003

Beyond the Evidence of the New Hypertension Guidelines. Blood pressure measurement – is it good enough for accurate diagnosis of hypertension? Time might be in, for a paradigm shift (I)

Despite widespread availability of a large body of evidence in the area of hypertension, the translation of that evidence into viable recommendations aimed at improving the quality of health care is very difficult, sometimes to the point of questionable acceptability and overall credibility of the guidelines advocating those recommendations. The scientific community world-wide and especially professionals interested in the topic of hypertension are witnessing currently an unprecedented debate over the issue of appropriateness of using different drugs/drug classes for the treatment of hypertension. An endless supply of recent and less recent "drug-news", some in support of, others against the current guidelines, justifying the use of selected types of drug treatment or criticising other, are coming out in the scientific literature on an almost weekly basis. The latest of such debate (at the time of writing this paper) pertains the safety profile of ARBs vs ACE inhibitors. To great extent, the factual situation has been fuelled by the new hypertension guidelines (different for USA, Europe, New Zeeland and UK) through, apparently small inconsistencies and conflicting messages, that might have generated substantial and perpetuating confusion among both prescribing physicians and their patients, regardless of their country of origin. The overwhelming message conveyed by most guidelines and opinion leaders is the widespread use of diuretics as first-line agents in all patients with blood pressure above a certain cut-off level and the increasingly aggressive approach towards diagnosis and treatment of hypertension. This, apparently well-justified, logical and easily comprehensible message is unfortunately miss-obeyed by most physicians, on both parts of the Atlantic. Amazingly, the message assumes a universal simplicity of both diagnosis and treatment of hypertension, while ignoring several hypertension-specific variables, commonly known to have high level of complexity, such as: - accuracy of recorded blood pressure and the great inter-observer variability, - diversity in the competency and training of diagnosing physician, - individual patient/disease profile with highly subjective preferences, - difficulty in reaching consensus among opinion leaders, - pharmaceutical industry's influence, and, nonetheless, - the large variability in the efficacy and safety of the antihypertensive drugs. The present 2-series article attempts to identify and review possible causes that might have, at least in part, generated the current healthcare anachronism (I); to highlight the current trend to account for the uncertainties related to the fixed blood pressure cut-off point and the possible solutions to improve accuracy of diagnosis and treatment of hypertension (II)

Toward a Multifaceted Heuristic of Digital Reading to Inform Assessment, Research, Practice, and Policy

In this commentary, the author explores the tension between almost 30 years of work that has embraced increasingly complex conceptions of digital reading and recent studies that risk oversimplifying digital reading as a singular entity analogous with reading text on a screen. The author begins by tracing a line of theoretical and empirical work that both informs and complicates our understanding of digital literacy and, more specifically, digital reading. Then, a heuristic is proposed to systematically organize, label, and define a multifaceted set of increasingly complex terms, concepts, and practices that characterize the spectrum of digital reading experiences. Research that informs this heuristic is used to illustrate how more precision in defining digital reading can promote greater clarity across research methods and advance a more systematic study of promising digital reading practices. Finally, the author discusses implications for assessment, research, practice, and policy