邢唷��>� ��欹�g� ��bjbjVV 4�r<r<€I%�� 8<P�N��"$$$��lMnMnMnMnMnMnM$㏄�[S<扢�%��%%扢��$$�.h)h)h)%�$�$lMh)%lMh)h)�淒8`G$��0浈偠~��&&訣$XM誐<�N鳨h桾,'$桾H`G`G�桾�IH�� 0h)�!��"G��扢扢P(��N%%%%��桾�� : Self-monitoring of blood glucose in type 2 diabetes: Cross-sectional analyses in 1993, 1999 and 2009 JMM Evans1, Senior Lecturer in Public Health D Mackison1, Research Fellow A Emslie-Smith2, Principal in General Practice Lawton J, Senior Research Fellow School of Nursing, Midwifery and Health1, 我要吃瓜 The Mill Practice, Dundee2 Research Unit in Health, Behaviour and Change3, University of Edinburgh Correspondence to: Dr Josie MM Evans PhD School of Nursing, Midwifery and Health 我要吃瓜 Stirling FK9 4LA Tel: 01786-466352 Fax: 01786-466333 E mail: josie.evans@stir.ac.uk Word Count (excluding Abstract, References and Tables): 1,622 Running title: Self-monitoring in type 2 diabetes Abstract Aim: To characterise the numbers of reagent strips dispensed for self monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) to patients with type 2 diabetes in Tayside, Scotland, in 1993, 1999 and 2009. Methods: A diabetes clinical information system in Tayside record-linked to electronic dispensed prescribing records, was used to collate all dispensed prescribing records for three cross-sectional samples of patients with type 2 diabetes in 1993 (n=5,728), 1999 (n=8,109), and January 1st 2009 (n=16,450). The numbers of reagent strips dispensed during the relevant calendar year were calculated, and patients stratified by treatment. We also explored whether age, sex or material and social deprivation were associated with whether a patient received strips. Results: Proportions of people who received SMBG reagent strips increased from 15.5% in 1993, to 24.2% in 1999 to 29.8% in 2009, as did numbers of strips dispensed. While the proportion of diet-treated patients who received reagent strips was still very low in 2009 (5.6%), the proportion among those treated with oral agents tripled from 9.4% to 27.4% between1993-2009. Over 90% of patients treated with insulin received reagent strips, and among non-insulin-treated patients this was commoner among women, younger people and less deprived groups. Conclusions: The numbers of reagent strips dispensed for SMBG has increased, and almost all insulin-treated patients receive strips. While few diet-treated patients receive strips, they are more extensively dispensed to those treated with oral agents. Given that SMBG is no longer routinely recommended in non-insulin treated patients, strategies to reduce unnecessary dispensing of reagent strips are needed. Introduction Self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) is considered an integral part of treatment for people with type 1 diabetes, and those with type 2 diabetes who use insulin1,2. These patients can use SMBG readings to adjust insulin doses themselves, if appropriate, thereby assisting optimal glycaemic control. However, the benefits of SMBG among people with type 2 diabetes who do not use insulin are much less certain. Recent trials, reviews and meta-analyses have shown either no or very small effects of SMBG on glycaemic control3,4,5. Given that there is also concern over the high costs associated with SMBG6 and possible adverse psychological consequences7,8, national guidelines state that routine monitoring is no longer recommended for patients who do not use insulin9,10, although it may benefit certain groups (eg users of sulponlyureas to reduce risk of hypoglycaemia)1. While the benefits of SMBG amongst non-insulin treated patients have been questioned, some (albeit limited) research suggests there has been a large increase in the numbers of patients who undertake SMBG. A UK survey in primary care found that over 80% of patients, including those treated with oral agents, did some monitoring, albeit this research involved a small self-selected patient group 11. Electronic prescribing records may provide a more objective picture of monitoring patterns, and a study using the General Practice Research Database (GPRD), indicated that prescriptions written for monitoring reagent strips among patients newly treated with oral agents increased from 19% to 32% between 1993 and 199812. The most recent analysis used IMS-Mediplus data for 40,094 patients with type 2 diabetes from 670 GP practices in the UK, and concluded that, in 2007, the proportion of patients treated with oral agents who self-monitored ranged from 36% to 58%, depending on the particular (combinations of) oral agents13. However, perhaps more surprisingly, the same proportion for patients treated by diet/exercise only was found to be as high as 26%. Given the recently published guidance that patients who do not use insulin should not routinely self-monitor1, alongside the limited and sometimes contradictory evidence currently available regarding monitoring patterns and frequency, we have carried out a study of the numbers and patterns of reagent strips for SMBG dispensed to patients with type 2 diabetes in Tayside, Scotland, and compared results with those in 1993 and 1999 to observe changes over time. Patients and Methods The Health Informatics Centre, University of Dundee14,15 works on the record-linkage of health care data to facilitate epidemiological and health services research in the population of Tayside, Scotland (estimated population of 396,960 in 2008). Record-linkage is enabled by the widespread use of a unique health care identifier (CHI number) that is allocated to people when they register with a General Practitioner (GP) in Scotland. SCI-DC (Scottish Care Information � Diabetes Collaboration) is a validated population-based diabetes information system in Tayside, compiled by record-linking several independent data sources (formerly known as DARTS: Diabetes Audit and Research in Tayside, Scotland)14. Detailed clinical information is available via SCI-DC for all patients with diabetes. The Medicines Monitoring Unit (MEMO) database15, developed for pharmacoepidemiological research, keeps computerised records of every prescription dispensed to Tayside residents, including those for self-monitoring equipment. From SCI-DC, we obtained prevalence estimates in Tayside for people who had been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes: at any time in 1993 and 1999, and prior to January 1st 2009. For every patient, we collated all prescriptions dispensed for blood reagent strips during the relevant calendar year. We were able to calculate the exact numbers of reagent strips dispensed for SMBG from details on the prescription. We record-linked these data to clinical and demographic information. We then categorised patients into those who had also received any prescription for insulin during the year as insulin-treated, those who received prescriptions for oral agents only as oral-treated, and the remaining patients as diet-treated. For the 2009 sample, we were also able to identify patients in the oral-treated group who had received any prescription for sulphonylureas. We investigated whether monitoring patterns were associated with age, sex and a postcode measure of social and material deprivation (SIMD) that classified people into quintiles of deprivation. This incorporates information on income, employment, health and disability, education, skills and training, and access to services, for small geographical areas16. To explore factors associated with whether or not a patient was dispensed reagent strips for any SMBG, we used logistic regression analysis to obtain adjusted odds ratios (with 95% confidence intervals) for these explanatory variables independently. Given there were only three variables, we entered all three into the model simultaneously. Results In 1993, 219,376 reagent strips for blood glucose monitoring were dispensed to patients with type 2 diabetes in Tayside, compared with 1,058,384 in 1999 and 1,777,664 in 2009. These were dispensed to 5,728 and 8,109 patients in 1993 and 1999 respectively, and 16,450 patients who had type 2 diabetes on 1st January 2009. Overall, the proportions of people who were dispensed any reagent strips for SMBG increased from 15.5% in 1993, to 24.2% in 1999 to 29.8% in 2009. Table 1 shows that the largest increase in reagent strips dispensed for SMBG occurred among people treated with oral agents. While the proportion of diet-treated patients who were dispensed reagent strips was still very low in 2009 (5.6%), the proportion for those treated with oral agents tripled from 9.4% to 27.4% during this time. The majority of patients treated with insulin received reagent strips for SMBG; this proportion is now over 90%. Among patients who received any reagent strips, the total numbers of strips dispensed also increased among patients treated with oral agents and insulin over the study period. The mean number of strips dispensed among insulin-treated patients is sufficient for daily monitoring. For those treated with oral agents, sufficient strips are dispensed for monitoring 3-4 times weekly. The proportion monitoring and the mean number of strips dispensed were higher among patients who were treated with sulphonylureas. However, there was still one fifth of patients treated with metformin and other oral agents who were receiving reagent strips for SMBG. Table 2 shows that receiving reagent strips for SMBG among patients not treated with insulin is more common among women and less deprived groups, but decreases with increasing age, with the odds ratios indicating independent effects of each of these factors. The associations are particularly evident for patients treated with oral agents. Discussion This study has confirmed a general increase in reagent strips dispensed for SMBG among all patients with type 2 diabetes over the past 15 years. While it is encouraging that over 90% of insulin-treated patients receive reagent strips, and obtain sufficient numbers to monitor daily, the increase in non insulin treated patients receiving reagent strips may be cause for concern, particularly among patients treated with oral agents. This study measured the number of reagent strips that were dispensed to patients in community pharmacies. Although we cannot be sure whether patients actually used all the strips that were dispensed to them, and they may also have received strips from other sources, the study has identified clear trends over time. We also consider that dispensed prescribing records for an entire diabetic population may provide a more objective measure of actual monitoring behaviour than self-report from selected samples of patients. Nevertheless the finding that only 5.6% of diet-treated patients received reagent strips for SMBG stands in stark contrast to the 26% reported using electronic IMS-Mediplus data from 670 GP practices13. That study used QoF data (Quality and Outcomes Framework) to locate patients with diabetes, hence it was able to identify only those who were receiving active treatment and monitoring. In contrast, the SCI-DC diabetes register in Tayside record-links information from several independent data sources and has high sensitivity and specificity for identifying all patients with diabetes14. Not only is the IMS-Mediplus study likely to have under-ascertained diet treated patients, patients who monitored were, by definition, more likely to have been identified. We therefore consider that our figure of 5.6% is a more realistic estimate of the prevalence of patients with type 2 diabetes who receive reagent strips for SMBG but who are not treated with oral agents or insulin. The greatest increase in reagent strips dispensed for SMBG was observed in patients treated with oral agents, with 27.4% receiving strips in 2009. The mean number of strips per patient would enable monitoring 3-4 times per week. In some practices in Scotland, GPs are no longer writing prescriptions for reagent strips for such patients, and it may be that this figure has decreased slightly since 2009. However, although this figure is also lower than in the IMS-Mediplus study, probably for the reasons already discussed, it is still substantial, given that routine monitoring is not recommended1. While the SIGN guidelines specify certain groups who may benefit from monitoring1, for example patients using sulphonylureas who are at high risk of hypoglycaemia, this is unlikely to apply to over one third of these patients. In summary, given the recent introduction of guidelines recommending that people who are not treated with insulin do not routinely undertake SMBG, alongside increased rationing of monitoring strips, the challenge is to identify patients for whom carrying out monitoring is unlikely to be beneficial and to dissuade them from doing so. Although we have identified several factors associated with receiving increased numbers of reagent strips for SMBG; specifically, being younger, female and from a less deprived area, it is not clear whether this arises from patient and/or prescriber expectations or behaviours. The increasing variety, availability and ease of use of self-monitoring testing kits, alongside marketing by their manufacturers, may be fuelling patient demand. To reduce unnecessary levels of monitoring, further research is therefore needed drawing upon patients� and health professionals� understandings, motivation and experience of monitoring, particularly among those patients who monitor most frequently. Acknowledgements Acknowledgements to the Health Informatics Centre, University of Dundee for provision of data. Funding This study was part-funded by Diabetes UK (ref RD03/0002637). The researchers were independent from the funding body. Conflict of Interest No Conflicts of Interest have been declared by the authors. References Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) (2010). Management of diabetes. A national clinical guideline. 116. Reynolds RM, Webb DJ. Recommendations and conclusions from a mini-symposium on self-blood glucose monitoring. J R Coll Physicians Edinb 2006;36:155-8. Farmer AJ, Wade AN, French DP, Simon J, Yudkin P, Gray A, Craven A, Goyder L, Holman RR, Mant D, Kinmonth A-L, Neil HAW on behalf of the DiGEM Trial Group. Blood glucose self-monitoring in type 2 diabetes: a randomised controlled trial. Health Technol Assess 2009; 13:15. Welschen LM, Bloemendal E, Nijpels G, Dekker JM, Heine RJ. Self-monitoring of blood glucose in patients with type 2 diabetes who are not using insulin: a systematic review. Diabetes Care 2005; 28. Towfigh A, Romanova M, Weinreb JE, Munjas B, Suttorp MJ, Zhou A, Shekelle PG. Self-monitoring of blood glucose levels in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus not taking insulin.: A meta-analysis. Am J Managed Care 2008; 14: Davidson MB. Counterpoint: self-monitoring of blood glucose in type 2 diabetic patients not receiving insulin: a waste of money. Diabetes Care 2005; 28:1531�3. Franciosi M, Pellegrini F, De Berardis G, Belfiglio M, Cavaliere D, et al. The impact of blood glucose self-monitoring on metabolic control and quality of life in type 2 diabetic patients. Diabetes Care 2001;24:1870-7. Peel E, Parry O, Douglas M, Lawton J. Blood glucose self-monitoring in non-insulin treated type 2 diabetes: a qualitative study of patients� perspectives. Brit J General Prac 2004;54:183-8. Heller et al. NHS Diabetes report: Self monitoring of blood glucose in non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes, NHS Diabetes, 2010. Clar C, Barnard K, Cummins E, Royle P, Waugh N. HYPERLINK "http://apps.isiknowledge.com/full_record.do?product=WOS&search_mode=CitedRefIndex&qid=2&SID=R1@o9cc4Paj59NnpFLN&page=1&doc=8" Self-monitoring of blood glucose in type 2 diabetes: systematic review. Health Technol Assess 2010; 14. Stewart D, McCaig D, Davie A, Juroszek L, Blackwood L, Findlay N, McCarthy S. Glucose self-monitoring in primary care: a survey of current practice. J Clin Pharm Ther 2004; 29:273-277. Gulliford M, Latinovic R. Variations in glucose self-monitoring during oral hypoglycaemic therapy in primary care. Diabetic Medicine 2004; 21:685-690. Belsey JD, Pittard JB, Rao S, Urdahl H, Jameson K, Dixon T. Self blood glucose monitoring in type 2 diabetes. A financial impact analysis based on UK primary care. Int J Clin Pract 2009; 63:439-448. Morris AD, Boyle DIR, MacAlpine R et al. The diabetes audit and research in Tayside, Scotland (DARTS) study: electronic record-linkage to create a diabetes register. Br Med J 1997; 315:5245(28. Evans JMM, McDevitt DG, MacDonald TM. The Tayside Medicines Monitoring Unit (MEMO): A record-linkage system for pharmacovigilance. Pharmaceut Med 1995; 9:177-184. Using the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation 2006: Guidance leaflet. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/10/13142841/1. Tables No. of patients Nos. of patients who received reagent strips for SMBGMean no. of strips dispensed per patient over 12 month period (mean in patients who received any strips) 1993Diet 2,24057 (2.5%)4.1 (160.2)Oral 2,652250 (9.4%)13.3 (140.7)Insulin836557 (66.6%)195.5 (293.5)All 5,728864 (15.5%)36.3 (240.5)1999Diet2,59888 (3.4%)5.0 (148.3)Oral 4,203716 (17.0%)29.0 (170.3)Insulin1,3081,099 (84.0%)349.1 (415.5)All8,1091,903 (23.5%)73.0 (310.9)2009Diet5,167289 (5.6%)8.4 (150.6) Oral Any sulph No sulph 8,856 4,518 4,338 2,427 (27.4%) 1,513 (33.5%) 914 (21.2%)54.4 (198.3) 70.6 (210.8) 37.4 (177.8)Insulin2,4272,186 (90.1%) 516.2 (573.1)All 16,4504,902 (29.8%) 362.6 (362.3) Table 1: Numbers of patients receiving reagent strips for SMBG, and mean numbers of reagent strips dispensed in 1993, 1999 and 2009. Diet-treatedTreated with oral agents TotalTotal monitoring (%)Adj. OR (95% CI)TotalTotal monitoring (%)Adj. OR (95% CI)SexMale2,582148 (5.7%) 1.004,9391,330 (26.9%)1.00Female2,296141 (6.1%) 1.13 (0.89-1.44) 3,9171,097 (28.0%)1.12 (1.02�1.23)Age< 45 yrs29917 (5.7%) 1.00525180 (34.3%) 1.0045-54 yrs59030 (5.1%) 0.89 (0.48-1.63) 1,283393 (30.6%)0.82 (0.66�1.02)55�64 yrs1,13184 (7.4%) 1.23 (0.72-2.12)2,287654 (28.6%)0.73 (0.59-0.89)65-74 yrs1,38887 (6.3%)1.04 (0.61-1.78)2,691763 (28.4%)0.71 (0.58-0.87)75+ yrs1,47071 (4.8%) 0.78 (0.48-1.35)2,070437 (21.1%)0.47 (0.38-0.58) Deprivation (quintiles) 1 (most deprived)79229 (3.7%) 1.001,527348 (22.8%)1.00286238 (4.4%) 1.22 (0.74�1.99) 1,585388 (24.5%)1.12 (0.95-1.33)385658 (6.8%) 1.87 (1.18-2.95)1,670496 (29.7%)1.50 (1.28-1.77)41,515103 (6.8%) 1.88 (1.23�2.86)2,605772 (29.6%)1.53 (1.32-1.77)5 (least deprived)79456 (7.1%)1.95 (1.23�3.09)1,358388 (28.6%)1.47 (1.24-1.74)Not known595 (8.5%) 2.32 (0.86�6.22)11135 (31.5%)1.55 (1.02-2.35) Table 2: Results of logistic regression to evaluate effects of age, sex and deprivation on whether patients received any SMBG reagent strips in 1999, stratified by treatment type PAGE PAGE 1 "78fgrsu|�� , - / 0 F G ` a b � � � � � � � % & 7 8 孑孑孑匀婪蜡蜡蜡灂灷灂壚暲吚h�(h8Y1h8Y1CJH*aJh8Y1CJH*aJh8Y1CJaJh笿�CJH*aJh笿�CJaJh�(CJH*aJh�(CJaJh笿�h�(5丆J(aJ(h芓g5丆J(aJ(h�;5丆J(aJ(hLg�5丆J(aJ(h�(5丆J(aJ( h�(5丆J$4ghi�� 0 G b � � � � � � � & 8 J i ��gd�0�d�gd�0�dhgd�=� $dha$gd�=�8 B I O h � � � � � � � � � � � � � � $)J桫栲匦枧翰枎瀱whY濲B�hqMCJaJhqMhqMB*CJaJph�h=c�h�<�B*CJaJph�h=c�h=c�B*CJaJph�h=c�h郵�B*CJaJph�h鍹5CJaJhj8KCJaJh"rCJaJh�<�CJaJh�<�h�<�5丆JaJh�(CJ aJ h1�h�(CJ aJ h1�h1�CJ aJ h7(CJaJh3F�CJaJh�7�CJaJh�(CJaJh�;CJaJh笿�CJaJi j � � � � ��e{tu�%�%�%�� $dha$gd�=�dhgd�=�%dhgd郵�$a$gd�=�gd�<�dhgd�<� $dha$gdj8Kgd�=� $dha$gd�=�gd�0�JQT��"Vpyz�� , . 栲靥螟柝柝桫杌杌爻璜湇珳崼鑱璜y 昏圾qh`".CJaJh�CJaJh芓gh�<�CJH*aJh��h��B*CJaJph�h��h郵�B*CJaJph�h郵�CJaJh��CJaJh&{NCJaJh�<�5丆JaJh�<�h�<�5丆JaJh"rCJaJhj8KCJaJh�<�CJaJh=c�CJaJh�*<�CJaJ,. 2 ; S T W \ c d y � � � � � � � � � � � � PX_`tv�桫栲砒丢琚檺�秔秇鑐X`PhLg�CJaJh�CJaJh=c�CJaJhqMCJaJhqMh�*<�B*CJaJph�h&{NCJaJh術�5丆JaJh"r5丆JaJh&{N5丆JaJh"rCJaJh=c�B*CJaJph�hqMhqMB*CJaJph�hE B*CJaJph�hE hE B*CJaJph�h郵�CJaJhj8KCJaJh�*<�CJaJh�<�CJaJ��19BDMnw��!./痄茉誊募墉烉漯弮忦瓰w瀼瀼of痄餟 hqMhqM5丅*CJaJph�hj8K5丆JaJh"rCJaJh�B*CJaJph�he�B*CJaJph�hqMh"rB*CJaJph�hqMh&{NB*CJaJph�hqMhj8KB*CJaJph�hj8KCJaJhe�CJaJh�*<�CJaJhqMCJaJh&{NCJaJh=c�B*CJaJph�hqMhqMB*CJaJph�/4GRjsyz{��$FT��疳裔梅岑馉馉梅鹈疳饦悎悩yj^jOh�h�<�B*CJaJph�he�B*CJaJph�h�h�B*CJaJph�h�h�*<�B*CJaJph�he�CJaJh`".CJaJh�*<�CJaJhqMh`".B*CJaJph�hj8KCJaJh=c�B*CJaJph�hqMhqMB*CJaJph�hqMh郵�B*CJaJph�hqMhj8KB*CJaJph�hqMh�*<�B*CJaJph��CFHW[��)<箸咦叹尘尘【曁緤�娋ti咎^S^�hmF5丆J\乤Jh�5丆J\乤JhWe"5丆J\乤Jh�=�5丆J\乤Jh�*<�5丆J\乤Jh��5丆J\乤JhTv�5丆JH*\乤J#h_P�h_P�5丅*CJ\乤Jph�h�2}5丆J\乤Jh��hTv�5丆J\乤JhTv�5丆J\乤Jh�(CJ aJ h扜aCJ aJ h�<�h�45丆JaJh�<�hj8K5丆JaJ<=CKjp}��-.03LRSZeh蹶蹶啧咴咴呱呓卟彠}rcTI�hmF5丆J\乤Jh峢�hF5�6丆J\乤Jh峢�h-^�5�6丆J\乤Jh3F�5丆J\乤J#h3F�h3F�5丅*CJ\乤Jph�h騧�5丆JH*\乤Jh郵�5丆JH*\乤Jh郵�5丆J\乤JhF5丆J\乤Jh鎧5丆JH*\乤Jh(Re5丆J\乤Jh�=�5丆J\乤Jh鎧5丆J\乤JhTv�5丆J\乤Jh�9)5丆J\乤Jh�� V��蹶苄墓」陽巸{僷hp]Tp]I]I]Ih郵�h��CJaJh騧�CJH*aJh郵�h-^�CJaJh郵�CJaJh郵�hWe"CJaJhB�CJaJh郵�h郵�CJaJh5uCJaJh�5丆J\乤Jh峢�5丆JH*\乤Jh峢�5�6丆J\乤Jh峢�5丆J\乤Jh騧�5丆JH*\乤Jh郵�5丆JH*\乤Jh郵�hF5丆J\乤JhF5丆J\乤Jh��5丆J\乤J�9:BCDEJdo~��WXY]gklmtvz��蹶蹶怩滋滋柞柞酌醺涪棦椄寳仐虠虠虠v虠h郵�h&nCJaJh郵�h�{CJaJh郵�h襝yCJaJh郵�h(ReCJaJh郵�hJ9�CJaJh郵�h^�CJaJh郵�h��CJaJh騧�CJH*aJh郵�hWe"CJaJh郵�h#.�CJaJh郵�CJaJh郵�h-^�CJaJh郵�h5uCJaJ):?y��€��箨咴稍驹朝棢巻~唦唦gXLh=c�B*CJaJph�hvYhvYB*CJaJph�hvYh�=�B*CJaJph�h=c�CJaJh-^�CJaJh騧�CJaJh�CJH*aJh�CJaJh襝yCJaJh�=�CJaJhWe"h郵�h5uCJaJh郵�h-^�CJaJh郵�h�=�CJaJh郵�hWe"CJaJh郵�h(ReCJaJh騧�CJH*aJh郵�h��CJH*aJ��defns{��_jm�.箸咦锨准唱悎€坵ne\w怲圠�h(ReCJaJh��CJaJh�CJH*aJhK�CJH*aJh騧�CJH*aJh颫[CJH*aJh芓gCJaJh衘BCJaJh颫[CJaJh�(5丆J aJ h�<�5丆J aJ h�2}5丆J aJ h騧�5丆J aJ h�=�h�=�CJaJh襝yCJaJh`".CJaJh�=�CJaJhvYCJaJh=c�B*CJaJph�h�9�B*CJaJph�.567im�89:;hs��./19y€�� # ( 4 w � � � � !陂酪敢敢轼疑酪梢耙敢憴懆檻▍ㄒㄒㄒ▆�h�9�CJaJh芓gh芓gCJH*aJh��CJaJh��h��B*CJaJph�h芓gCJaJh�{CJaJh衘BCJaJh騧�CJH*aJh颫[CJH*aJh颫[CJaJhE h衘BB*CJaJph�hE hE B*CJaJph�hE CJaJ1!!!W!Y!z!D"�"�"�"�"#4#?#Z#[#�#�#�#1$2$3$q$$�$�$�$�$�$�$栲桫匦刃揉类俯毨媯y鄇^j郞┼h�9�h衘BB*CJaJph�h��B*CJaJph�hvYhvYB*CJaJph�h騧�CJH*aJh�9)CJH*aJhE hE B*CJaJph�h�9�hE B*CJaJph�h�9�h�9�B*CJaJph�h�9�CJaJhE CJaJhNCJaJh}�CJaJhcCJaJh衘BCJaJh颫[CJaJh(ReCJaJh芓gCJaJ�$�$�$%%%-%/%%�%�%�%�%�%�%�%�%�%�%�%�%�%&.&E&]&_&b&g&l&�&�&�&唾唾沤惮拪饖拏妔d奷奬�h��CJaJh��h��B*CJaJph�h��h�3@B*CJaJph�h CRCJaJh�3@CJaJh~eCJaJh�(5丆J aJ h扜a5丆J aJ h芓g5丆J aJ h_1ACJaJh颫[CJaJh�9�CJaJh�9�B*CJaJph�h�9�h�9�B*CJaJph�h�vCJaJh騧�CJaJh~EZCJaJ �&�&�&''('7'i''�'�'�'�'�'�'�'(()(8(](^(j(t(�(�(�(�(�(�(�()))+):)>)K)Z)[)_)箅阍入栏腊廊糟ɡ阍壤犂樌槓槹愒葎惏|m匀|mhvYhY%hB*CJaJph�hY%hCJaJhvYB*CJaJph�h8^CJaJhx1�CJaJh(ReCJaJh�{CJaJh�0(CJaJh襝yCJaJhxw�CJaJh��B*CJaJph�hvYhvYB*CJaJph�hvYCJaJh�3@CJaJh�3@h�3@CJH*aJ(�%j'k'�+�+-- ---�.�.�4�4�7�7�;�;<�a<�b<�j<��<��<��dhgd�=�$a$gdLg�$a$gd1 $a$gd�=��dh^�gd�=� $dha$gd�=�_)e)k)l)�)�)�*�*�*�+�+�+�+�+�+�+�+�+�+�+�+�+g,�,�,�,- ---箐箐胀磐疆洧酵綒洧鋴儃s{k{c[Rh�0(5丆J aJ h�(CJaJh�3@CJaJhE�CJaJh�&oCJaJh�0(CJaJh�{CJaJhvYh�{B*CJaJph�h襝yCJaJh��B*CJaJph�hvYhcB*CJaJph�hcCJaJhK�CJaJhY%hCJaJhvYhY%hB*CJaJph�hvYhvYB*CJaJph�h�9�B*CJaJph�---5-I-X-f-j-�-�-�-�-�-�-�-�-..#.$.b.c.m.|.�.�.A/r/�/�/�/ 0箸咦思邨徸妓讇xp椉藯h辑糦hvYh賁|B*CJaJph�h卽CJaJhmFCJaJh��CJaJh��h��B*CJaJph�h]6CJaJh�{CJaJ h卽0J$hJ9�CJaJhvYheYB*CJaJph�hvYhvYB*CJaJph�h��B*CJaJph�heYCJaJh�+CJaJh#nh�(5丆J aJ h#nh#n5丆J aJ 0 00 00>0缚0诲0濒0�0�0�0�0�0�0�0�0111"1115191:1础1窜1虫1触1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1陂谒橼奸奸船敎旈堥垳赌虫攛辫虫攇镑攛�丑騧�颁闯贬*补闯丑卽颁闯贬*补闯丑闯9�颁闯补闯丑賁触颁闯补闯丑闭6颁闯补闯丑��叠*颁闯补闯辫丑�丑辩皑�颁闯补闯丑�调颁闯补闯丑卽颁闯补闯丑别驰颁闯补闯丑缚调�颁闯补闯丑缚调�丑别驰叠*颁闯补闯辫丑�丑缚调�丑测罢�叠*颁闯补闯辫丑�丑缚调�丑�=�叠*颁闯补闯辫丑�丑缚调�丑缚调�叠*颁闯补闯辫丑�丑惫驰颁闯补闯$�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�12"2;2袄2#3$3%3(3)3<3A3Z3l3y3�3�3�3R4^4m4u4z4�4�4�4�4�4�4�4�45&5桊桊囵罔叙星拘匦缎鹭鹦煋煁畠畠饟焧餷hG0�CJaJh`{�hq}�B*CJaJph�h卽CJaJh`{�CJaJh��B*CJaJph�h`{�h`{�B*CJaJph�haZ�CJaJh�<�CJaJh騧�CJH*aJh賁|CJH*aJh賁|CJaJh]6CJaJh�{CJaJhJ9�CJaJhq}�CJaJh騧�CJaJ(&50575>5@5�677V7W7�7�7�7�7�7�7�7 880858e8m8o8�8�8�8�8E9w9�9箸咦锨厩登瓥幥唦唦vj璿唙啂bSh`{�h`{�B*CJaJph�h鶫WCJaJh��h?L6丆JaJhPX�CJaJhNrCJaJh '�CJaJh*Z�CJaJh�h?LB*CJaJph�h�CJaJh?LCJaJh�CJH*aJhcCJH*aJhcCJaJh1 CJaJh�&oCJaJhG0�CJaJh��B*CJaJph�h`{�B*CJaJph��9�9�9�9�9�9�9: :::#:':5:B:E:O:Q:�:�:�: ;;3;=;e;f;s;t;�;�;�;�;�;�;�;�;�;�;�;疳傺傺裳凉焉焉寡饱杀澅蓵蓫晒蓵~晒v箆眓eh'N�5丆JaJh卽CJaJhPX�CJaJh�h�B*CJaJph�hNrCJaJh�CJaJh�7�CJaJh�B*CJaJph�hLg�CJaJh1 CJaJh`{�CJaJh '�CJaJh鶫WCJaJh]6CJaJh`{�h`{�B*CJaJph�h`{�h鶫WB*CJaJph�'�;<�<�`<�a<�b<�j<�y<�~<��<��<��<��<��<��<��<��<�==3=4=5=@=�=�=&>@>N>O>鲱骖圉嘹嘤膛汤樊樊伐恷pbpYh盺�CJaJhh�9)h�9)6丆JaJhh�9)h�9)CJaJh&h鎧h鎧6丆JKH$\乤JmH sH hFCJaJh�(5丆J aJ h�(h�(CJ\乤Jh&!RCJ\乤JhfegCJ\乤J h�(5� h&!R5丆J hfeg5丆J h�(5丆J h衘BCJ h�(CJh衘BCJaJh�(CJaJh�(5丆JaJ�<��<�4=@=�=O>_?$@A丅?C��zz% &F勈剾�dh^勈`剾龷d騧�$ &F勦勈剾�dhめ�@&]勦^勈`剾龵$gd騧�%$ &F ��p@H(#�勈剾�dh]�^勈`剾龵$gd盺�$ &Fdhめ�@&a$gd�=� $dha$gd�=�dhgd�=�gd�=�O>鲍>齿>镑>补>颈>濒>尘>苍>蝉>耻>皑>>�>�>�>�>�>�>�>�>�>�>�>�>�>�>�>�>�>�>�>�>�>�>�>�>??:?C?C镟锑镟福嫞tYM?M?Mih騧�h騧�6丆JaJhh騧�h騧�CJaJhh騧�h騧�CJaJhmHsHh騧�h騧�CJaJ,h騧�h騧�B*CJPJ\乤JmH ph# sH /h騧�h騧�6丅*CJPJ]乤JmH ph# sH )h騧�h騧�B*CJPJaJmH ph# sH &h��h鎧6丆JKH$\乤JmH sH &h鎧h鎧6丆JKH$\乤JmH sH h鎧CJKH$\乤JmH sH h鎧6丆JKH$\乤JmH sH ?C狢緾繡轈餋馛{D|D翫肈臘艱贒酓鉊錎鍰鏒|E镙羌触殽嚗歸g\N\�:2hWe"CJaJ&h��h��6丆JKH$\乤JmH sH h��h��0J'5丆JaJh�7�0J'5丆JaJh�7�h�7�0J'5�6丆JaJh�7�h��0J'5�6丆JaJ$h�7�h��0J>*B*CJaJph�h�7�h��CJaJjh�7�h��CJUaJh�7�CJaJh��h��CJaJ*h騧�h騧�0J5�6丆JKH$aJmH sH #h騧�h騧�0J5丆JaJmH sH h騧�h騧�CJ\乤JmH sH ?C繡鏒燛7F�F肎fH際驢鬑鯤��€€tdh$Ifgd�=�dhgd�=�$ &F勦dhめ�@&]勦a$gd盺�$ &F勦dhめ�@&]勦a$gd�=� &F ��p@H(#dhgd�=�$ &Fdhめ�@&a$gd��$ &F勈剾�dhめ�@&^勈`剾龵$gd騧�|E嶦燛F%F7FsF貴跢霧�F!G&G璆綠縂FHUHfH镠闔際霩鲱孑嫠辅枿巸巣巓巣巂TE@ h1 ]�h盺�h[�B*CJaJphh盺�B*CJaJphh盺�h盺�B*CJaJph j-�h�=�CJaJh�=�6丆JaJh�=�6丆J]乤Jh�=�CJaJ"h(Re6丅*CJaJmH phsH h(ReB*CJaJmH phsH %h(Reh(ReB*CJaJmH phsH #h(Reh(ReCJKH$\乤JmH sH h#.�6丆JaJh#.�CJaJhWe"CJaJhWe"6丆JaJ霩驢鬑鮄鯤鶫鼿II8I惭?惭蚕惭搁惭奥惭齿惭别惭蹿惭飞惭虫惭测惭触惭皑惭词惭嘙奙婱昅朚歁汳濵烳玀琈癕尽睲糓縈繫蔒薓軲轒鉓銶蜩菹膨废夫夫夫向栩废夫夫夫向栎稀蚍蚍蚍颟颟蛳蜩蚍蚍蚍颟�丑达�丑贬痴厂袄�丑达�丑搁办<�5丆J\乤Jh達�h�m5丆J\乤Jh達�hHVS5乗�h達�hHVS5丆J\乤Jh達�hHVSCJaJh達�h笿�5乗�h達�h笿�5丆J\乤J?闘隠風(dh$Ifgd�=��kdk $$If杔�譃�� B�� =�;/�� t��0��6��4�4� la�風餖鮈鸏MMM M%M��$dh$Ifa$gd�=�dh$Ifgd�=�ekd.$$If杔�� S! t��0��6��4�4� la�%M&M-M(dh$Ifgd�=��kd�$$If杔�譃�� B�� =�;/n7 t��0��6��4�4� la�-M3M?MEMRMXMfMlMxM��$dh$Ifa$gd�=�xMyM}M(dh$Ifgd�=��kd`$$If杔�譃�� B�� =�;/n7 t��0��6��4�4� la�}M~M嘙婱朚汳烳琈盡��$dh$Ifa$gd�=�dh$Ifgd�=�ekd# $$If杔�� S! t��0��6��4�4� la�盡睲糓(dh$Ifgd�=��kd� $$If杔�譃�� B�� =�;/n7 t��0��6��4�4� la�糓繫薓袽轒銶餗鯩N��$dh$Ifa$gd�=�銶颩餗NNN NNNNNNN/N0N5N6NANBNSNTNUN_N`NaNdNeNnNoNsNtN€N匩哊慛扤璑甆疦睳砃絅綨螻蠳誑諲酦釴鬘鮊鯪OO OOO蜾咒啼局句句句蜾蜾蜾啼局句句句掘潋潋涮渚志渚渚潋潋潋涮博槱� h�9�h�9�B*CJ\乤Jph�h�9�CJ\乤Jh達�hHVSCJ\乤Jh達�h�m5丆J\乤Jh達�h笿�5乗�h達�hHVS5丆J\乤Jh達�h笿�5丆J\乤Jh達�hRk<�5丆J\乤J;NN N(dh$Ifgd�=��kdU$$If杔�譃�� B�� =�;/n7 t��0��6��4�4� la� NNN$N0N6NBNHNTN��$dh$Ifa$gd�=�TNUN_N(dh$Ifgd�=��kd$$If杔�譃�� B�� =�;/n7 t��0��6��4�4� la�_NeNoNtN€N哊扤楴��$dh$Ifa$gd�=�璑(dh$Ifgd�=��kd�$$If杔�譃�� B�� =�;/n7 t��0��6��4�4� la�璑砃綨腘蠳諲釴鐽鮊��$dh$Ifa$gd�=�鮊鯪O(dh$Ifgd�=��kd�$$If杔�譃�� B�� =�;/n7 t��0��6��4�4� la�OO"O&O1O6O*ph�H��aHcontent17€>*CJOJQJS*€Y(aJo(*W@�q*Strong5乗丷T@�R Block Text$刦勑]刦^勑a$CJmH sH 4�4Header ��!H7@�H List Bullet 3dhCJ\乤JNE@�NList Continue 2勑^勑mH sH BJ@�BSubtitle$a$5丆JmH sH RR@�R魀�Body Text Indent 2�d�^�j��j~EZ Table Grid7:V�0��\^@�\ �Normal (Web)[$\$B*CJaJmH phsH <�Z@<�.L) Plain Text OJPJQJ<�瞏�<�q}�0Revision!_HmH sH tH H橜"H#q}�Balloon Text"CJOJQJ^JaJR��1R"q}�Balloon Text CharCJOJQJ^JaJtH B'@�AB鍹5Comment ReferenceCJaJ4@R4鍹5Comment Text%@j@QR@鍹5Comment Subject&5乗�2﨩�q2�2} data_bold15乗丳K!檗�[Content_Types].xml瑧薔�0E鱄鼉�-J湶@%閭菐洽|廊�$韶钵UL襎B� l,�3鳛;鉹�得槣B+$�G]ミ7O侪V墎$�┇最�!)O赹齬虲$駓@摪磔�/瓂H*�橊劥�)戅祶鬟粖譛Db俙}"譹蹕擩讞枻肵^�)I`n蘀�紛p)�杵li筕[]�1M<斷绒彥O蠵擊6r�=瘔抸纆b營g吜u崘S賓b嘱€O缽嗕掘肦罝郢櫉反qu 痝嫎Z岸串o~俸lAp發x妏T0�+[}`j纂鹾絲A�帮儲V�2虵蒳朄鰍瀡分�5\|夻蕼汰Nвle瞂�ds趈cs倭惻7琊嵨f坊赅肉W琊�+唻7爤唁`�陲g�葮稠J�雷j|唫h(�驞-姷咩� dX�﹊J曝�(钼x$(��:隶;渌�!�I_蠺到S1ｗ犍鳢�?E��?勉?ZB为m渼錟/魁煜��?瀪篁�誼Y�'奎鼀5襣&螊/燑鲮蓩�>籊餗丟e鴲艱�眢3Vq%'#q��域娡$�8翚K秊�敉)f檞9:牡�澹 x}r�x墘�渨⒇顁�:\TZaG�*檡8I耲鎎R祈c|X呕�强絀 u3KG駈D1�NIB襰鼆� 眍R曦u楘侹>V�.EL+M2�#'歠嫸i~橵�l硔u8z�篐� �*�鏄�:�(W�鈽� ~J攘T鴈\O*餿HG絸HY垫�}KN吡P�*菥甩眿�T鸭�9/#辐A7聁Z��$*c?��韖U咤n嗚w�N蝴%幓O�穒鑸4=3炯N�績)cbJ u�4峦(Tn酸� 7斒_?異鹠-贈皗U逄鰤B�w�襷消╪湐鞘�"Zx娬J躗氺p;嫇熟劐辿/�<�P;檸,)''K蠶踜5棝騫邛苝N喦8疜軬b耬摨� 鸖撡d洯\17 阷鮝�>ОSR!�枒 3晠K4'+�r蘻Q TT３I辈琉疘vt]K芻猥渤K#趘�5+D�眽厍鄜獱O@%\w槉燺鄋N[跮古9K候崢临q桃g錠炆n R!儁+�篣蕁�;�*&�/H時�蟃邀 �>��>\ 宼Υ=.T摹 �觖S; Z鄜�!ㄠ傏�銹��9gi槾咰ぺ�!�# B鰻,欒;匵=刍,I�2UW�9$l╧嗒捋=Aj挄�;顊朅79鍇s*Y摈�;浱爺[嘙C撣�県f华]o栫{oY=1k�yV骋V惺隐5E8鏥k+譁扑蚛8疴计0X4D)�!!��?*|f縱� u洒《"鴛A谸T_矋��帬q矁6�4)k诂u襐�7�顃�'尛%;嬁蟟膦9s�9箈懫�,熵趲-45x鰀娐�8?�菢蟙�/Y|t��&LIL饾J`琛& �-G硉�/��PK! 褠煻'theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.rels剰M �0匃倃oo雍�&輬协�勪5 6?$Q祉 �,.嘺緳i粭澤c2�1h�:闀q毩m胳嶡RN壻;d癭値o7�g慘(M&$R(.1榬'J摐袏T鶂�8V�"＆A然蠬鱱}狇�|�$絙{�朠�除8塯/]As賲(⑵锑#洩L蔥汉倪��PK-!檗�[Content_Types].xmlPK-!ブх�60_rels/.relsPK-!ky��theme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK-!0軨)��theme/theme/theme1.xmlPK-! 褠煻'� theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK]�  �� $$$'8 J. �/�<h��.!�$�&_)- 0�1&5�9�;O>@?C|E霩絁扡銶O)P嘠)+-./0123456789:<�=>?@ABDEFHIT]fow}i �%�<�?C鯤㊣袸鱅JCJIJkJ慗糐釰鐹K,K圞碖轐怢闘風%M-MxM}M盡糓N NTN_N璑鮊OMOPO朞橭軴郞'P;P~P塒蒔薖*,;CGJKLMNOPQRSUVWXYZ[\^_`abcdeghijklmnpqrstuvxyz{|�;{<��<�X�� '!�!�晙�8�@��€€€�饞��0�( � �養 �S�� ?��e(e(e(e(e(e(e(e(e(e(e( e(!e("e(#e($e(%e(&e('e((e()e(*e(+e(,e(-e(.e(/e(0e(1e(2e(0��R� ` $$4444B4�4�4�5�>�>K?K?T? :��h� a ,,>4H4H4�4�4�5�>�>R?\?\? >*€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags €PersonName€=*€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags €PlaceName€=*€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags €PlaceType€9*€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags€place€8*€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags€City€B *€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags€country-region€@' ��`a��$ % � � YZ� � �4�455��蔼衢�昻濒>箩6'7贵酅��<��G!A梷咲躋稤鎄鮆疉+�峆wV顄Z顄Z梷咲翺Rh峆wV��Or]26"d!UxpA�;0蓃#3��(� 烞琁?LN�F�4E 隮擿 ;�4Tu蜨鎧7(IP5u�(c6]a�卽�Rv]6Kr891 _g �-"We"�0(�9)馌).L)�:*6h*0l*�+�.+0,`".8Y1鳾1H'2�93鍮3(M4鍹5蔣5�(6躻8VB:�;�*<�Rk<�痬=/>RL>f?1-@�3@_1A鷂A衘B�"Eo{EmF�2F%Kj8KqM瓾M&{N5KOPA-P&!RQ9R CR� SHVS[U痝U�W鶫Wh=YeYvY]Z~EZ颫[lW\�,]8^�=^_扜a;d�e(Re~ef7xf芓gfegY%h�!l〦l�m#n&n�&oOZoQp腯pYlp攛q葉q"rNr� u�u�v誔x^Ey襝y�z鵃z鄜z�{�"|賁|�2}�鄋!€p��0��.�8)�嘜�[��S=�LK�Lg�B� �K�S�C-�`{�q}��%�yT��r7�1 ��7�X[�=1�m��8�GI��bu�A�笿��?�盺�d^�dA��_P�達�c�v��<�玏�aZ�= ��>�PX�魀�s��=�(�梘�1m�'N�豑��9�乿�s$�xw��#�E�G0�騧�J9��=�=c�]g�L��宆�}�e�躩��)�Tv��x1�峢��.��8�農�郵�VL�緆��r,�)��:�� / � '��6�ox�=Z�]�1�玥��焪�)/�閧�}�E�-^�顈��㎜�術�%�� >%�!��亖24[I[I(3僸�HX�?��(2! xx��_No increased risk of mortality in older males following diagnosis with type 2 diabetes mellitusJosie StansfieldElizabeth Fuller {English}H �鄥燆鵒h珣+'迟0�€�� DP p|� ��`No increased risk of mortality in older males following diagnosis with type 2 diabetes mellitusJosie StansfieldNormal.dotmElizabeth Fuller {English}12Microsoft Office Word@(谢@\沕秪�@K\�@偠~�� >�胀諟.摋+,D胀諟.摋+,�\hp�� <�UNIVERSITY OF DUNDEE�%[I`No increased risk of mortality in older males following diagnosis with type 2 diabetes mellitusTitle| 8@_PID_HLINKS�A4Z:}http://apps.isiknowledge.com/full_record.do?product=WOS&search_mode=CitedRefIndex&qid=2&SID=R1@o9cc4Paj59NnpFLN&page=1&doc=8 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<�=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~��€��Root Entry�� F€痉偠~��€Data ��b1Table��逿WordDocument��4�SummaryInformation(��DocumentSummaryInformation8��CompObj��r�� F Microsoft Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDocWord.Document.8�9瞦