MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3044377510 · doi:10.1007/s13300-020-00884-0

Burden of Diabetes and Prediabetes in Nepal: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020· review· en· W3044377510 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetes Therapy · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrediabetesMedicineDiabetes mellitusMeta-analysisIntensive care medicineSystematic reviewMEDLINETraditional medicineType 2 diabetesInternal medicineEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Unhealthy behaviors, such as energy-dense food choices and a sedentary lifestyle, both of which are established risk factors for diabetes, are common and increasing among Nepalese adults. Previous studies have reported a wide variation in the prevalence of prediabetes and diabetes in Nepal, and thus a more reliable pooled estimate is needed. Furthermore, Nepal underwent federalization in 2015, and the province-specific prevalence, which is necessary for the de novo provincial government to formulate local health policies, is lacking. This study aims to provide a comprehensive summary of the current literature on various aspects of diabetes in Nepal, i.e., the prevalence of prediabetes and diabetes as well as of the awareness, treatment, and control of diabetes in Nepal. METHODS: This review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We searched three electronic databases-PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science-using a comprehensive search strategy to identify eligible studies published up to April 2, 2020. Data on prevalence estimates of prediabetes and diabetes were extracted and pooled in a meta-analysis using a random effect model. Subgroup analyses and meta-regression were conducted to assess heterogeneity across the studies. The quality of included studies was assessed using the New Castle-Ottawa scale. RESULTS: We included 14 eligible studies that comprised a total of 44,129 participants and 3517 diabetes cases. Half of the included studies had good quality. Overall, the prevalence of prediabetes and diabetes was 9.2% (95% CI 6.6-12.6%) and 8.5% (95% CI 6.9-10.4%), respectively. Among the participants with diabetes, only 52.7% (95% CI 41.7-63.4%) were aware of their diabetes status, and 45.3% (95% CI 31.6-59.8%) were taking antidiabetic medications. Nearly one-third of those under antidiabetic treatment (36.7%; 95% CI 21.3-53.3%) had their blood glucose under control. The prevalence of prediabetes and diabetes gradually increased with increasing age and was more prevalent among males and urban residents. There was a wide variation in diabetes prevalence across the provinces in Nepal, the lowest 2% in Province 6 to the highest 10% in Province 3 and Province 4. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of prediabetes and diabetes was high in Nepal, while its awareness, treatment, and control were low. Our findings call for urgent nationwide public health action in Nepal.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.630
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0270.006
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.259 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it