HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Spijkerman, A. M.W. Articles by Heine, R. J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Spijkerman, A. M.W. Articles by Heine, R. J. Social Bookmarking                What's this?

Diabetic Patients Detected by Population-Based Stepwise Screening Already Have a Diabetic Cardiovascular Risk Profile

¹ Institute for Research in Extramural Medicine, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
² Department of Internal Medicine, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
³ Department of Endocrinology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands

	ABSTRACT

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS RESULTS CONCLUSIONS References

 
OBJECTIVE—To describe a population-based two-step screening procedure for type 2 diabetes and to study the cardiovascular risk profile of the patients identified by the screening.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—The first step of the screening procedure consisted of the Symptom Risk Questionnaire (SRQ), and the second step was a fasting capillary glucose measurement. In subjects with an SRQ score of >6 and a capillary glucose level of >5.5 mmol/l, an oral glucose tolerance test was performed.

RESULTS—A total of 11,679 inhabitants of the West-Friesland region of the Netherlands, aged 50–75 years, were invited. Of the inhabitants, 9,169 (78%) responded, and, of those, 417 had previously diagnosed diabetes. The SRQ score was calculated for 7,736 participants, and 3,301 of those had a score of >6. A total of 2,885 subjects (87.3%) attended for capillary glucose measurement. Diagnostic testing was carried out in 509 participants, and we identified 217 diabetic patients. In these patients detected by screening, mean HbA_1c was 6.7% (±1.4). Hypertension and high total cholesterol levels (>5.0 mmol/l) were present in 70%, 33% had high triglyceride (>3.0 mmol/l) or low HDL cholesterol levels (<1.0 mmol/l in men and <1.1 mmol/l in women), and 40% were obese (BMI 30 kg/m²).

CONCLUSIONS—The high response rate was the main feature of the screening by means of the Symptom Risk Questionnaire and fasting capillary glucose measurement followed by diagnostic testing. The 217 diabetic patients detected by the screening were characterized by relatively low HbA_1c levels and by a cardiovascular risk profile typical of diabetic patients.

Abbreviations: OGTT, oral glucose tolerance test • SDM, screening-detected type 2 diabetes • SRQ, Symptom Risk Questionnaire • WHO, World Health Organization

	INTRODUCTION

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS RESULTS CONCLUSIONS References

 
Screening for type 2 diabetes has been promoted in the American Diabetes Association guidelines and the medical literature (1,2). The high prevalence of undiagnosed diabetes (3,4), the presence of diabetic complications at the time of diagnosis (5), and the assumption that early detection and treatment will be beneficial have lead to these recommendations.

Screening for type 2 diabetes can be carried out in various ways. Population-based or universal screening attempts to screen every person in the entire population or in an entire age-group. Selective or targeted screening is directed at individuals with a high prevalence of risk factors. Opportunistic screening consists of screening people during their visits to, for example, the general practitioner’s office (6). Universal screening for type 2 diabetes with oral glucose tolerance tests (OGTTs) performed in the whole population is burdensome because it is invasive and time consuming. Targeted screening with a noninvasive test for first selection, followed by glucose testing in high-risk individuals only, might be a more efficient approach.

Studies on universal screening (7,8), opportunistic screening in general practice (9), and targeted screening in general practice (10) have been reported, but few data exist on population-based targeted screening for type 2 diabetes.

In this article, we report on a population-based two-step screening procedure and the cardiovascular risk profile of individuals identified as diabetic patients. The two-step screening consisted of a screening questionnaire (step 1) (Symptom Risk Questionnaire [SRQ] [11]) and a fasting capillary glucose sample (step 2) followed by an OGTT.

	RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS RESULTS CONCLUSIONS References

 
Study population
From 1998 to 2000, all inhabitants aged 50–75 years (n = 11,679) and living in three municipalities in the semi-rural region of West-Friesland, the Netherlands, were invited to participate in the screening for type 2 diabetes.

Screening procedure
All individuals received an invitation with a cover letter explaining the aim of the study, an informed consent form, the SRQ, a nonparticipation form, and an envelope with prepaid postage. After 6 weeks, a reminder was sent to all people who did not respond to the first invitation. The first step of the screening consisted of the completion of the SRQ, which contains nine questions about age, sex, BMI, family history of diabetes, frequent thirst, use of antihypertensive medication, shortness of breath, claudication, and cycling. Each answer has a fixed score, and the aggregate SRQ score is a predictor of undiagnosed type 2 diabetes (11). The cut point of six had optimal sensitivity (66%) and specificity (70%) (positive predictive value 13%, negative predictive value 97%) for diabetes, as defined by the 1999 World Health Organization (WHO) diagnostic criteria (A.M.W.S., J.M.D., unpublished data). All participants with an SRQ score of >6 points were invited for the second step of the screening, which consisted of a fasting capillary blood glucose measurement. Capillary glucose was measured in whole blood samples with a Hemocue Blood Glucose Analyzer, a portable photometric system based on the glucose-dehydrogenase method (Hemocue Benelux, Oisterwijk, the Netherlands). Intra- and interassay coefficients of variation ranged from 1.0 to 4.5% and from 2.4 to 4.2%, respectively (12,13). In all individuals with a capillary glucose level >5.5 mmol/l, which is the threshold for glucose intolerance in the guidelines of the Dutch College of General Practitioners (14), a venous sample was drawn at the same occasion. Participants with a capillary glucose level >5.5 and 8.5 mmol/l had a 75-g OGTT within 2 weeks. Individuals with a capillary glucose level >8.5 mmol/l did not have an OGTT because their fasting levels were considered to be too high. Therefore, only a second fasting plasma glucose measurement was determined, and diagnosis was based on two fasting plasma glucose measurements. For all participants, 1999 WHO diagnostic criteria were used: a fasting plasma glucose level 7.0 mmol/l on two separate occasions or a 2-h plasma glucose level 11.1 mmol/l (15). Individuals identified as having screening-detected type 2 diabetes (SDM) were invited for an extensive medical examination including measurement of HbA_1c, glucose, blood lipids, anthropometry, and blood pressure. The study was done at the Diabetes Research Center in Hoorn, the Netherlands. All participants gave written informed consent. The Ethics Committee of the VU University Medical Center approved the study.

Measurements
Plasma glucose concentrations were assessed by means of a glucose hexokinase method (Boehringer Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany). HbA_1c was determined by ion-exchange high-performance liquid chromatography with a Modular Diabetes Monitoring System (Bio-Rad, Veenendaal, the Netherlands). Serum total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and triglycerides were measured by enzymatic techniques (Boehringer Mannheim). The Friedewald formula was used to calculate LDL cholesterol, except when the triglyceride level was >4.5 mmol/l. Weight and height were measured with subjects barefoot, wearing only light clothes. Blood pressure was calculated as the mean of two measurements, performed in the sitting position after 5 min of rest, using a random-zero sphygmomanometer (Hawksley-Gelman, Lancing, Sussex, U.K.).

High cholesterol was present if serum total cholesterol was >5.0 mmol/l. Low HDL cholesterol was defined as HDL cholesterol <1.0 mmol/l in men and HDL cholesterol <1.1 in women and high LDL cholesterol as LDL cholesterol 3.0 mmol/l. High triglyceride was defined by a triglyceride level >2.0 mmol/l (16). A ratio of total cholesterol to HDL cholesterol of >5 was considered to be high (14). Obesity was defined as BMI 30 kg/m² (17). Individuals were considered to be hypertensive if they had a diastolic blood pressure 90 mmHg and/or a systolic blood pressure 140 mmHg, and/or if they were using antihypertensive medication (18).

To study whether subgroups with different cardiovascular risk profiles could be distinguished, we compared three subgroups. First, the patients with fasting capillary glucose >8.5 mmol/l who did not have an OGTT (non-OGTT-SDM) were compared with patients who did (OGTT-SDM). Next, within the group of OGTT-SDM patients, we compared two groups: the 2-h SDM group consisted of patients for whom the 2-h value of the OGTT was decisive for diagnosis because they had none or only one elevated fasting value. The mixed SDM group included patients who had an OGTT and who had two elevated fasting values. Some of these patients also had an elevated 2-h value.

Statistical analysis
Groups were compared using the Student’s t test for continuous variables, the ² test for dichotomous variables, and the Mann-Whitney U test for skewed variables. A P value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Triglycerides and the SRQ score were presented as median and interquartile range because of their skewed distribution.

	RESULTS

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS RESULTS CONCLUSIONS References

 
Two-step screening procedure
Response.
Figure 1 shows the outline of the stepwise screening procedure and the number of participants in each step. A total of 11,679 individuals were invited. Of those, 2,510 (22%) subjects did not respond at all. There were 9,169 people who sent back either the SRQ or the nonparticipation form, resulting in a total response of 78%. The 741 people who returned the nonparticipation form were significantly older than the participants of the screening. Nonparticipants reported various reasons: 28.5% checked the item "I am certain that I do not have diabetes," 15.7% checked "My health is already monitored by a physician," and 13.8% checked "a recent blood glucose test was OK." In total, 417 previously diagnosed diabetic patients completed the SRQ. The SRQ was returned by a total of 8,011 nondiabetic participants, but because of missing data (n = 275), we calculated the SRQ score for 7,736 participants. Of 3,301 individuals with an SRQ score of >6 points, 2,885 participated in the fasting capillary glucose measurement, and 570 had a glucose level >5.5 mmol/l. Of these, 38 had a capillary glucose level >8.5 mmol/l, and no OGTT was performed, but two venous fasting samples were taken. An OGTT was carried out in 473 individuals. A total of 217 participants were identified by the screening procedure as having type 2 diabetes. A physical examination was performed in 195 patients.

View larger version (18K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 1— Outline of the stepwise population-based screening study. FPG, fasting plasma glucose.

	CONCLUSIONS

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS RESULTS CONCLUSIONS References

The prevalence rates of dyslipidemia, obesity, and hypertension in our study may be high because the SRQ includes BMI and several cardiovascular items, thus selecting a group of individuals with an unfavorable cardiovascular risk profile. One could argue that our screening procedure identified diabetic patients who might benefit most from early treatment of dyslipidemia and hypertension. The Heart Protection Study and the Cholesterol and Recurrent Events trial have already shown that type 2 diabetic patients do benefit from treatment of dyslipidemia in terms of reduction of lipid levels (20,21) and reduction in the number of major coronary events (21). Treatment of hypertension in type 2 diabetic patients has been demonstrated to reduce cardiovascular events and deaths related to diabetes (22).

The subgroup of non-OGTT-SDM patients seemed to be patients in whom diabetes was already in a more advanced stage because they were relatively young, had high HbA_1c levels, and frequently reported thirst and a family history of diabetes on the SRQ (SRQ data not shown). Nevertheless, their cardiovascular risk profile did not differ from that of patients diagnosed by the OGTT. Because of the symptoms and high fasting glucose values, we expect that these patients would also have come to (rapid) clinical recognition without the screening.

The 2-h SDM group would not have been diagnosed if the OGTT had not been performed. Apart from the higher prevalence of hypertension, this group did not differ from the remaining SDM patients. Moreover, in the Netherlands, >50% of these patients would probably have been tested again within 1 year because they had one fasting plasma value in the diabetic range in addition to the elevated 2-h value (14). The small group with isolated postchallenge hyperglycemia and with lower levels of fasting glucose, HbA_1c, and BMI would not have been identified at all without the OGTT. In other words, without the OGTT, we would have missed only a small group of patients with a similar cardiovascular risk profile. These results seem to imply that the OGTT added relatively few cases and may not be required to identify the large majority of diabetic patients in this two-step screening procedure.

The application of screening and diagnostic tests inevitably involves some misclassification. We probably have missed some individuals who did have diabetes but did not have the risk factors included in the SRQ, i.e., the young, less obese diabetic patients without a family history of diabetes and without cardiovascular symptoms. Because of the younger age and absence of cardiovascular symptoms, one could speculate that this group of missed patients would have a more favorable cardiovascular risk profile. The total population prevalence of undiagnosed diabetes and the number of missed diabetic patients can only be determined by population screening. However, this was not feasible. The difference between the prevalence of screening-detected diabetes in a screening study and the prevalence of undiagnosed diabetes from a population study might seem a good approximation of the number of missed patients. However, major differences between populations in true diabetes prevalence, quality of health care, and routine detection of type 2 diabetes and participation rates prohibit the comparison of results of different studies. The same is true for the comparison of prevalence rates of screening-detected diabetes among screening studies.

Engelgau et al. (6) stated in his review of screening for type 2 diabetes that glucose (invasive) tests performed better than the screening questionnaires. Still, we feel that in the selection of a screening test, other aspects of screening should prevail, for example, 1) the fact that screening tends to involve a high number of people relative to the number who benefit eventually (23) and 2) that there is still no convincing evidence for the benefits of early diagnosis and treatment of type 2 diabetes (6,24).

In this context, we believe that a noninvasive screening test should be the test of choice. Naturally, this noninvasive screening test should have good test characteristics. We selected the SRQ, which was developed in a Dutch population and had the best performance of three questionnaires (11).

Organization of the screening procedure is likely to influence participation rates. Nonresponse rates in other screening studies ranged from 65% in the screening test (7) to 25% in diagnostic testing (7,9). In our study, the nonresponse was 22% in the first screening test (SRQ) and 11% for the diagnostic test (OGTT). Lawrence et al. (7) used a fasting plasma glucose test as the first screening tool. In contrast, in the present study, only people with a higher risk of undiagnosed diabetes (high SRQ score) were asked to go through the trouble of fasting for a capillary glucose measurement. The need to fast again for a diagnostic test was also restricted to those with a high capillary glucose level. We would like to stress that high-risk individuals with a negative OGTT result should be informed that they do not have diabetes at this very moment but that they still have an elevated future risk. In conclusion, our targeted screening procedure is less of a burden for its participants than universal screening because the first screening test is noninvasive, and further invasive diagnostic testing is restricted to people at high risk for undiagnosed diabetes. Targeted screening might result in a cost advantage as well because of the smaller number of diagnostic tests, which will save money in terms of time, personnel, and laboratory costs.

Recently, O’Connor et al. (25) described a stepwise screening within a health management organization. The first selection of the high-risk population was based on information available in databases. Consequently, there was no initial loss due to nonresponse. However, the participation rates for the subsequent glucose tests were lower than in our population-based targeted screening, and only a few patients were identified. The quality of diabetes care within this health management organization might have affected the yield of screening, as was shown by the high proportion of people who were screened for diabetes in the previous year. The differences between these two screening studies illustrate that comparisons of screening studies need to be interpreted with caution.

The results of our study showed that it was possible to carry out population-based stepwise screening. We succeeded in identifying 217 patients with type 2 diabetes, but we cannot say whether these patients will benefit from their early identification in terms of health status or whether the screening is cost-effective. Future screening studies should focus on the quantification of possible benefits of early detection followed by early treatment.

In conclusion, our results show that stepwise population screening by means of the SRQ and a fasting capillary glucose measurement followed by diagnostic testing was an acceptable and practical method of screening for type 2 diabetes. The diabetic patients detected by the screening were characterized by relatively low HbA_1c levels and a cardiovascular risk profile typical of diabetic patients.

	Acknowledgments

 
This study was funded by the Health Research and Development Council of the Netherlands (formerly the Prevention Fund).

	Footnotes

 
Address correspondence and reprint requests to A.M.W. Spijkerman, MSc, Institute for Research in Extramural Medicine, VU University Medical Center, van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. E-mail: amw.spijkerman.emgo{at}med.vu.nl.

Received for publication 7 January 2002 and accepted in revised form 29 June 2002.

A table elsewhere in this issue shows conventional and Système International (SI) units and conversion factors for many substances.

	References

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS RESULTS CONCLUSIONS References

 

1. American Diabetes Association: Screening for diabetes (Position Statement). Diabetes Care 23(Suppl. 1):S20–S23, 2000
   
2. Clark CM, Fradkin JE, Hiss RG, Lorenz RA, Vinicor F, Warren-Boulton E: Promoting early diagnosis and treatment of type 2 diabetes: the National Diabetes Education Program. JAMA 284:363–365, 2000[Free Full Text]
   
3. Mooy JM, Grootenhuis PA, de Vries H, Valkenburg HA, Bouter LM, Kostense PJ, Heine RJ: Prevalence and determinants of glucose intolerance in a Dutch Caucasian population: the Hoorn Study. Diabetes Care 18:1270–1273, 1995[Abstract]
   
4. Harris MI: Undiagnosed NIDDM: clinical and public health issues. Diabetes Care 16:642–652, 1993[Medline]
   
5. UK Prospective Diabetes Study 6: Complications in newly diagnosed type 2 diabetic patients and their association with different clinical and biochemical risk factors. Diabetes Res 13:1–11, 1990[Medline]
   
6. Engelgau MM, Narayan KM, Herman WH: Screening for type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 23:1563–1580, 2000[Abstract]
   
7. Lawrence JM, Bennett P, Young A, Robinson AM: Screening for diabetes in general practice: cross sectional population study. BMJ 323:548–551, 2001[Abstract/Free Full Text]
   
8. Claudi T, Midthjell K, Holmen J, Fougner K, Kruger O, Wiseth R: Cardiovascular disease and risk factors in persons with type 2 diabetes diagnosed in a large population screening: the Nord-Trondelag Diabetes Study, Norway. J Intern Med 248:492–500, 2000[Medline]
   
9. Leiter LA, Barr A, Belanger A, Lubin S, Ross SA, Tildesley HD, Fontaine N: Diabetes Screening in Canada (DIASCAN) Study: prevalence of undiagnosed diabetes and glucose intolerance in family physician offices. Diabetes Care 24:1038–1043, 2001[Abstract/Free Full Text]
   
10. Bullimore SP, Keyworth C: Finding diabetics: a method of screening in general practice. Br J Gen Pract 47:371–374, 1997[Medline]
    
11. Ruige JB, de Neeling JN, Kostense PJ, Bouter LM, Heine RJ: Performance of an NIDDM screening questionnaire based on symptoms and risk factors. Diabetes Care 20:491–496, 1997[Abstract]
    
12. Ashworth L, Gibb I, Alberti KG: HemoCue: evaluation of a portable photometric system for determining glucose in whole blood. Clin Chem 38:1479–1482, 1992[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
13. Voss EM, Cembrowski GS: Performance characteristics of the HemoCue B-Glucose analyzer using whole-blood samples. Arch Pathol Lab Med 117:711–713, 1993[Medline]
    
14. Rutten GEHM, Verhoeven S, Heine RJ, De Grauw WJC, Cromme PVM, Reenders K, Van Ballegooie E, Wiersma TJ: NHG-standaard diabetes mellitus type 2 (eerste herziening). Huisarts Wet 42:67–84, 1999
    
15. Alberti KGMM, Zimmet PZ: Definition, Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus and its Complications. Part 1: Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus. Geneva, World Health Org., 1999
    
16. Wood D, De Backer G, Faergeman O, Graham I, Mancia G, Pyorala K: Prevention of coronary heart disease in clinical practice: recommendations of the Second Joint Task Force of European and Other Societies on Coronary Prevention. Eur Heart J 19:1434–1503, 1998[Free Full Text]
    
17. World Health Organization: Physical Status: the Use and Interpretation of Anthropometry: Report of the WHO Expert Committee. Geneva, World Health Org., 1995 (Tech. Rep. Ser., no. 854)
    
18. 1999 World Health Organization-International Society of Hypertension Guidelines for the Management of Hypertension: Guidelines Subcommittee. J Hypertens 17:151–183, 1999[Medline]
    
19. Hillier TA, Pedula KL: Characteristics of an adult population with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes: the relation of obesity and age of onset. Diabetes Care 24:1522–1527, 2001[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
20. MRC/BHF Heart Protection Study Collaborative Group: MRC/BHF Heart Protection Study of cholesterol-lowering therapy and of antioxidant vitamin supplementation in a wide range of patients at increased risk of coronary heart disease death: early safety and efficacy experience. Eur Heart J 20:725–741, 1999[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
21. Goldberg RB, Mellies MJ, Sacks FM, Moye LA, Howard BV, Howard WJ, Davis BR, Cole TG, Pfeffer MA, Braunwald E: Cardiovascular events and their reduction with pravastatin in diabetic and glucose-intolerant myocardial infarction survivors with average cholesterol levels: subgroup analyses in the Cholesterol and Recurrent Events (CARE) trial. Circulation 98:2513–2519, 1998[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
22. UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group: Tight blood pressure control and risk of macrovascular and microvascular complications in type 2 diabetes: UKPDS 38. BMJ 317:703–713, 1998[Abstract/Free Full Text]
    
23. Stewart-Brown S, Farmer A: Screening could seriously damage your health. BMJ 314:533–534, 1997[Free Full Text]
    
24. Wareham NJ, Griffin SJ: Should we screen for type 2 diabetes? Evaluation against National Screening Committee criteria. BMJ 322:986–988, 2001[Free Full Text]
    
25. O’Connor PJ, Rush WA, Cherney LM, Pronk NP: Screening for diabetes mellitus in high-risk patients: cost, yield, and acceptability. Eff Clin Pract 4:271–277, 2001[Medline]
    

CiteULike

Del.icio.us

Digg

Reddit

Technorati

This article has been cited by other articles:

				P. Janssen, K. Gorter, R. Stolk, and G. Rutten Low yield of population-based screening for Type 2 diabetes in the Netherlands: the ADDITION Netherlands study Fam. Pract., December 1, 2007; 24(6): 555 - 561. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. M.H. Hermans, R. Henry, J. M. Dekker, J. P. Kooman, P. J. Kostense, G. Nijpels, R. J. Heine, and C. D.A. Stehouwer Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate and Urinary Albumin Excretion Are Independently Associated with Greater Arterial Stiffness: The Hoorn Study J. Am. Soc. Nephrol., June 1, 2007; 18(6): 1942 - 1952. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. C. van Hove, T. Hansen, J. M. Dekker, E. Reiling, G. Nijpels, T. Jorgensen, K. Borch-Johnsen, Y. H. Hamid, R. J. Heine, O. Pedersen, et al. The HADHSC Gene Encoding Short-Chain L-3-Hydroxyacyl-CoA Dehydrogenase (SCHAD) and Type 2 Diabetes Susceptibility: The DAMAGE Study Diabetes, November 1, 2006; 55(11): 3193 - 3196. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A.M.W. Spijkerman, Y.M. Smulders, P.J. Kostense, R.M.A. Henry, A. Becker, T. Teerlink, C. Jakobs, J.M. Dekker, G. Nijpels, R.J. Heine, et al. S-Adenosylmethionine and 5-Methyltetrahydrofolate Are Associated With Endothelial Function After Controlling for Confounding by Homocysteine: The Hoorn Study Arterioscler. Thromb. Vasc. Biol., April 1, 2005; 25(4): 778 - 784. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. M.A. Henry, P. J. Kostense, J. M. Dekker, G. Nijpels, R. J. Heine, O. Kamp, L. M. Bouter, and C. D.A. Stehouwer Carotid Arterial Remodeling: A Maladaptive Phenomenon in Type 2 Diabetes but Not in Impaired Glucose Metabolism: The Hoorn Study Stroke, March 1, 2004; 35(3): 671 - 676. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. M.A. Henry, O. Kamp, P. J. Kostense, A. M.W. Spijkerman, J. M. Dekker, R. van Eijck, G. Nijpels, R. J. Heine, L. M. Bouter, and C. D.A. Stehouwer Left Ventricular Mass Increases With Deteriorating Glucose Tolerance, Especially in Women: Independence of Increased Arterial Stiffness or Decreased Flow-Mediated Dilation: The Hoorn Study Diabetes Care, February 1, 2004; 27(2): 522 - 529. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. T. Schram, R. M.A Henry, R. A.J.M van Dijk, P. J. Kostense, J. M. Dekker, G. Nijpels, R. J. Heine, L. M. Bouter, N. Westerhof, and C. D.A. Stehouwer Increased Central Artery Stiffness in Impaired Glucose Metabolism and Type 2 Diabetes: The Hoorn Study Hypertension, February 1, 2004; 43(2): 176 - 181. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. M.W. Spijkerman, J. M. Dekker, G. Nijpels, M. C. Adriaanse, P. J. Kostense, D. Ruwaard, C. D.A. Stehouwer, L. M. Bouter, and R. J. Heine Microvascular Complications at Time of Diagnosis of Type 2 Diabetes Are Similar Among Diabetic Patients Detected by Targeted Screening and Patients Newly Diagnosed in General Practice: The Hoorn Screening Study Diabetes Care, September 1, 2003; 26(9): 2604 - 2608. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. M.A. Henry, P. J. Kostense, A. M.W. Spijkerman, J. M. Dekker, G. Nijpels, R. J. Heine, O. Kamp, N. Westerhof, L. M. Bouter, and C. D.A. Stehouwer Arterial Stiffness Increases With Deteriorating Glucose Tolerance Status: The Hoorn Study Circulation, April 29, 2003; 107(16): 2089 - 2095. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Spijkerman, A. M.W. Articles by Heine, R. J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Spijkerman, A. M.W. Articles by Heine, R. J. Social Bookmarking                What's this?