Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Table 1.

Clinical characteristic of studied subjects with and without diabetic retinopathy.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Fig 1.

The association of diabetic retinopathy with metabolic syndrome.

(A) Prevalence (%) of patients with DR in relation to number of metabolic syndrome components (1 to 5). 1 represents elevated glucose, while 2 to 5 represent elevated glucose combined with one to four other components of MetS, respectively. When patients were grouped according to the number of detected components of the metabolic syndrome, the percentage of patients with DR increased linearly with the increasing number of components in their respective groups (14.3%, 38.9%, 49.1%, 61.4%, 83.3%, respectively), whereas, the percentage of patients without DR decreased with the increasing number of components (85.7%, 61.1%, 50.9%, 38.6%, 16.7%, respectively) (Pearson χ2 = 9.938, P = 0.037). (B) According to the IDF and AHA/NHLBI definitions. Comparison of prevalence of DR between NMetS and MetS group. The trend to DR in the MetS group was significantly higher than in the NMetS group (Pearson χ2 = 5.540, P = 0.019).

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

Contribution of cumulative metabolic components in DR and Odds ratios for DR with/without MetS.

Binary logistic regression was conducted to assess the association of DR with the number of components of MetS (A) and MetS (B) using the Entry method; adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) given. 1–5 were identified as the number of components of MetS in (A), with 1 being elevated glucose as a referent and 2–5 elevated glucose combining one to four other factors of the MetS. The group without MetS was used as a referent in (B). Adjustment variables included the basic confounders (age and sex) in Model 1. In Model 2, WC, SBP, TC, HbA1c and duration of diabetes were also considered other adjustment variables and were thus added to Model 1.

More »

Fig 2 Expand