[Previous Months][Date Index][Thread Index][Join - Register][Login]
[Message Prev][Message Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: [IP] Re: CDC/Epidemic article

I remember this being discussed at a Continuing Education session that I had
to attend...I thought that they had said that anyone with consecutive fasting
BGs over 126 was considered 'diabetic.'  But the Type was not decided by that
number alone...they would need to be sent for a GTT to diagnose type.

Roxanne Villanueva RD, LD
Cleveland, Ohio
IDDM X 18+ years, pumping X 6+ years.
Remember...Diabetics are naturally sweet!

In a message dated 1/27/01 3:19:22 PM Eastern Standard Time,
email @ redacted writes:

> I haven't read the article yet, but as I recall, 1999 was about the time
> some
> of the professional criteria used to diagnose diabetes was lowered.  Using
> the newer standards, SOME people who previously did not have levels high
> enough to diagnose "diabetes" would now be diagnosed with diabetes.  This
> would be part of an explanation for a sudden rise in new cases of diabetes.
> I wonder, did the article address this?
> Linda
for HELP or to subscribe/unsubscribe, contact: HELP@insulin-pumpers.org
send a DONATION http://www.Insulin-Pumpers.org/donate.shtml