METHODS: We used data from 1108 population-representative studies with 141 million participants aged 18 years and older with measurements of fasting glucose and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), and information on diabetes treatment. We defined diabetes as having a fasting plasma glucose (FPG) of 7·0 mmol/L or higher, having an HbA1c of 6·5% or higher, or taking medication for diabetes. We defined diabetes treatment as the proportion of people with diabetes who were taking medication for diabetes. We analysed the data in a Bayesian hierarchical meta-regression model to estimate diabetes prevalence and treatment.
FINDINGS: In 2022, an estimated 828 million (95% credible interval [CrI] 757-908) adults (those aged 18 years and older) had diabetes, an increase of 630 million (554-713) from 1990. From 1990 to 2022, the age-standardised prevalence of diabetes increased in 131 countries for women and in 155 countries for men with a posterior probability of more than 0·80. The largest increases were in low-income and middle-income countries in southeast Asia (eg, Malaysia), south Asia (eg, Pakistan), the Middle East and north Africa (eg, Egypt), and Latin America and the Caribbean (eg, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, and Costa Rica). Age-standardised prevalence neither increased nor decreased with a posterior probability of more than 0·80 in some countries in western and central Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, east Asia and the Pacific, Canada, and some Pacific island nations where prevalence was already high in 1990; it decreased with a posterior probability of more than 0·80 in women in Japan, Spain, and France, and in men in Nauru. The lowest prevalence in the world in 2022 was in western Europe and east Africa for both sexes, and in Japan and Canada for women, and the highest prevalence in the world in 2022 was in countries in Polynesia and Micronesia, some countries in the Caribbean and the Middle East and north Africa, as well as Pakistan and Malaysia. In 2022, 445 million (95% CrI 401-496) adults aged 30 years or older with diabetes did not receive treatment (59% of adults aged 30 years or older with diabetes), 3·5 times the number in 1990. From 1990 to 2022, diabetes treatment coverage increased in 118 countries for women and 98 countries for men with a posterior probability of more than 0·80. The largest improvement in treatment coverage was in some countries from central and western Europe and Latin America (Mexico, Colombia, Chile, and Costa Rica), Canada, South Korea, Russia, Seychelles, and Jordan. There was no increase in treatment coverage in most countries in sub-Saharan Africa; the Caribbean; Pacific island nations; and south, southeast, and central Asia. In 2022, age-standardised treatment coverage was lowest in countries in sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia, and treatment coverage was less than 10% in some African countries. Treatment coverage was 55% or higher in South Korea, many high-income western countries, and some countries in central and eastern Europe (eg, Poland, Czechia, and Russia), Latin America (eg, Costa Rica, Chile, and Mexico), and the Middle East and north Africa (eg, Jordan, Qatar, and Kuwait).
INTERPRETATION: In most countries, especially in low-income and middle-income countries, diabetes treatment has not increased at all or has not increased sufficiently in comparison with the rise in prevalence. The burden of diabetes and untreated diabetes is increasingly borne by low-income and middle-income countries. The expansion of health insurance and primary health care should be accompanied with diabetes programmes that realign and resource health services to enhance the early detection and effective treatment of diabetes.
FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council, UK Research and Innovation (Research England), and US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the spatiotemporal gait parameters and indicators of turning difficulty during the Timed Up and Go (TUG) test in older adults with BPPV.
METHODS: This case-controlled study collected data from older adults aged 65 and above with BPPV, young adults with BPPV and older adults without BPPV. Postural stability and self-perception of stability were measured using the Functional Gait Analysis and the Malay version of the Dizziness Handicap Inventory, respectively. The spatiotemporal gait parameters were recorded using a camera. The one-way ANOVA test was used for statistical analysis.
RESULTS: Older adults with BPPV presented with alteration in gait parameters (time and number of steps) compared to older adults without BPPV and adults with BPPV during the TUG test (p
OBJECTIVE: In this scoping review, we aimed to systematically map the literature on the perceptions of physiotherapists as well as the barriers and enablers of telerehabilitation in their daily practice.
METHODS: The five-stage methodological framework recommended by Arksey and O'Malley (2005) was used for this scoping review. In the framework, eight databases were searched using key search terms such as "telerehabilitation", "physiotherapists", "readiness", "enablers" and "barriers" All findings were organised into perceptions and readiness, enablers, and barriers.
RESULTS: Fourteen articles met the inclusion criteria and were categorized as: (1) perception and readiness, (2) enablers, and (3) barriers. In the perception and readiness category, new trends in healthcare, advancement in physiotherapy practices and the benefits to clients were identified. The enablers identified included prior training, personal experience, familiarity with technology, functional equipment and space, and client selection. The barriers to the adoption of telerehabilitation in physiotherapy practice are pinpointed to poor technology, communication hurdles, limited availability, lack of familiarity, and client-related concerns.
CONCLUSION: While initial evidence suggests a generally positive perceptions it is important to consider both facilitators and barriers when understanding adoption. This review's findings revealed a wide research gap, with unequal weightage towards barriers compared to enablers, and highlights the need for further research. Developing telerehabilitation guidelines that cater to both physiotherapists and clients is necessary.
DESIGN: We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA).
METHODS: Databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched from their inception date until May 2023. Randomized clinical trials (RCT) comparing intraperitoneal lidocaine and placebo in adults undergoing surgery were included.
RESULTS: Our systematic review included 24 RCTs (n = 1824). The intraperitoneal lidocaine group was significantly associated with lower postoperative pain scores at rest (MD, -0.87, 95% CI, -1.04 to -0.69) and at movement (MD, -0.50, 95% CI, -0.93 to -0.08) among adult patients after surgery. Its administration also significantly decreased morphine consumption (MD, -6.42 mg, 95% CI, -11.56 to -1.27) and lowered the incidence of needing analgesia (OR, 0.22, 95% CI, 0.14 to 0.35). Intraperitoneal lidocaine statistically reduced time to resume regular diet (MD, 0.16 days; 95% CI, -0.31 to -0.01) and lowered postoperative incidence of nausea and vomiting (OR, 0.54, 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.75).
CONCLUSIONS: In this review, our findings should be interpreted with caution. Future studies are warranted to determine the optimal dose of administering intraperitoneal lidocaine among adult patients undergoing surgery.