Comment 81064

By John Neary (registered) | Posted September 19, 2012 at 21:36:44

Ryan, I'd advise that you edit this post to emphasize that this study looked at the incidence of diabetes (i.e. the frequency with which people who did not initially have diabetes developed the condition) rather than the prevalence of diabetes* (i.e. the proportion of people who had diabetes on study entry).

You use the word "incidence" once in the second paragraph, but then use phrases such as "the rate of diabetes", "50% higher risk of diabetes", "three times the risk of diabetes" which could easily be taken as referring to prevalence. I'd insert the word "incident" before "diabetes" in each of those phrases, and also define the term "incidence" for readers who aren't familiar with it.

(Similar to the previous poster, I assumed that the results of this study were hopelessly confounded by the fact that socioeconomic status is a predictor of both neighbourhood of residence and risk of diabetes. That the study examined incident rather than prevalent diabetes mitigates the importance of that confounding somewhat.)

Really interesting article -- thanks for posting.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds