Division of Diabetes Translation, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Hubert Department of Global Health, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, 1518 Clifton Road, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA.
Curr Diab Rep. 2018 Sep 19;18(11):108. doi: 10.1007/s11892-018-1088-z.
The measurement and estimation of diabetes in populations guides resource allocation, health priorities, and can influence practice and future research. To provide a critical reflection on current diabetes surveillance, we provide in-depth discussion about how upstream determinants, prevalence, incidence, and downstream impacts of diabetes are measured in the USA, and the challenges in obtaining valid, accurate, and precise estimates.
Current estimates of the burden of diabetes risk are obtained through national surveys, health systems data, registries, and administrative data. Several methodological nuances influence accurate estimates of the population-level burden of diabetes, including biases in selection and response rates, representation of population subgroups, accuracy of reporting of diabetes status, variation in biochemical testing, and definitions of diabetes used by investigators. Technological innovations and analytical approaches (e.g., data linkage to outcomes data like the National Death Index) may help address some, but not all, of these concerns, and additional methodological advances and validation are still needed. Current surveillance efforts are imperfect, but measures consistently collected and analyzed over several decades enable useful comparisons over time. In addition, we proposed that focused subsampling, use of technology, data linkages, and innovative sensitivity analyses can substantially advance population-level estimation.
人群中糖尿病的测量和评估指导资源分配、优先事项,并可能影响实践和未来的研究。为了对当前的糖尿病监测进行批判性反思,我们深入讨论了美国如何测量糖尿病的上游决定因素、患病率、发病率和下游影响,以及获得有效、准确和精确估计值所面临的挑战。
目前通过全国性调查、卫生系统数据、登记处和行政数据来获取糖尿病风险负担的估计值。一些方法上的细微差别会影响到对糖尿病人群负担的准确估计,包括在选择和响应率、人群亚组代表性、糖尿病状况报告的准确性、生化检测的变异性以及研究人员使用的糖尿病定义方面存在偏差。技术创新和分析方法(例如,与国家死亡索引等结局数据进行数据链接)可能有助于解决其中的一些问题,但并非所有问题,仍然需要进一步的方法学进展和验证。目前的监测工作并不完美,但几十年来持续收集和分析的措施能够实现随着时间的推移进行有用的比较。此外,我们还提出,有针对性的抽样、技术的使用、数据链接和创新的敏感性分析可以大大推进人群水平的估计。