Although risk factors linked to diabetic retinopathy (DR) among patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have been extensively studied globally, the specific determinants of these factors in relation to DR in Palestine are presently not well understood.

Methods

This retrospective cross-sectional study included patients who underwent DR screening with a fundus camera (VersaCam a). The study included patients aged ≥18 with T2DM, excluding those with other types of diabetes or a history of malignancies. Univariable and multivariable logistic regressions were used to identify factors associated with DR.

Results

A total of 1163 patients with T2DM were included in this study. Of these, 211 (18.1%) patients were classified in the DR group, 761 (65.4%) in the no DR group and 191 (16.4%) were ungradable. Among the included patients, 434 (37.3%) were male. A secondary level of education or higher and a BMI ≥30 kg/m², compared with <25 kg/m², were independently and inversely associated with DR, with odds ratios (ORs) of 0.46 (p < 0.001) and 0.58 (p = 0.046), respectively. A 5-year increase in the duration of T2DM correlated with 45% higher odds of having DR (p < 0.001). Patients with DR were more likely to have HbA1c >7%, be physically inactive and use insulin, with ORs of 1.63 (p = 0.02), 2.05 (p < 0.001) and 1.53 (p = 0.03), respectively. Age, gender, occupational status, hypertension and hyperlipidaemia were not independent predictors of DR (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Longer duration of T2DM, HbA1c >7%, physical inactivity and insulin use were all independently associated with the presence of DR. Furthermore, a secondary or higher educational level and obesity demonstrated independent and inverse associations with the development of DR.

1 Introduction

Diabetic retinopathy (DR) remains the primary cause of legal blindness in individuals of working age [1]. DR is a prevalent microvascular complication of Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and represents the leading cause of visual impairment among the elderly. This complication affects approximately 30%–40% of people with diabetes [2, 3]. In 2020, it was estimated that around 103 million adults worldwide were affected by DR, and this number could rise to 160 million by 2045. This substantial increase in cases is expected to have a significant impact on the prevalence of blindness and vision impairment, particularly among adults of working age groups [2, 4, 5].

The development of DR is directly related to a longer period of diabetes, uncontrolled hyperglycaemia and hypertension. Additionally, a higher and fluctuating HbA1c level is a significant factor contributing to the emergence and progression of DR [6, 7]. Additional risk factors encompass nephropathy, dyslipidaemia, smoking, earlier onset of diabetes and a higher body mass index (BMI); all previous factors are modifiable to prevent the progression of DR [8-11]. Despite numerous epidemiologic studies and clinical trials exploring the primary risk factors for DR [12], there is significant variability in the consistency, pattern and strength of these risk factors.

Systematic screening and monitoring for DR have demonstrated their cost-effectiveness in diminishing the occurrence of blindness and visual impairment in individuals with diabetes. Screening facilitates the precise timing of laser and medical treatments that can potentially halt the advancement of the disease [13]. The guidelines outlined by the World Health Organization (WHO) for DR screening recommend that patients with diabetes should undergo annual eye examinations [14].

The need for well-designed and DR screening initiatives is becoming eminent. Therefore, the primary objective of this study was to assess the risk factors of DR among patients with T2DM in Palestine, introducing a handheld fundus camera (VersaCam a) for the first time in the country.

2 Materials and Methods

2.1 Study Participants and Data Collection

A retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted at Augusta Victoria Hospital (AVH) in which the data were collected through a community outreach program during the period of 2021–2022. All data were collected using a dedicated data sheet, which was completed by a trained nurse. Herein, we reviewed the medical records of screened patients and included patients aged ≥18 with T2DM, regardless of the duration of diabetes mellitus. Patients with Type 1 diabetes mellitus, other types of diabetes or a current or previous history of malignancies were excluded. Overall, we enrolled 1163 patients in this study. The following data were collected: sociodemographic factors (sex, age, marital status, education and occupational levels and residential area), medical-related factors (BMI, HbA1c, diabetes duration, cardiovascular diseases, hypertension and hyperlipidaemia), health behaviour–related factors (medication, smoking and physical activity) and diagnosis of DR.

2.2 Diagnosis of Diabetic Retinopathy

Retinopathy screening was conducted by a handheld fundus camera (VersaCam a) to determine the existence of DR, distinguishing between proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) and nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR) if present. Patients underwent screening using fundus photographs, which were then examined and classified by a skilled nurse from the AVH team. Briefly, eye drops were used to widen the pupils. Two coloured fundus photographs were taken during the examination to identify specific signs. Neovascularisation, vitreous haemorrhage or preretinal haemorrhage are indicative of PDR. Conversely, the presence of microaneurysms, dot haemorrhages, hard exudates or cotton wool spots without neovascularisation corresponds to NPDR. The absence of these signs in fundus photographs indicates the absence of DR. Using the Scottish grading protocol, patients with a grading of R1 or higher were identified as having retinopathy. In cases where the retinal images were deemed ungradable by the nurses, they were referred to an ophthalmologist for further examination.

2.3 Statistical Analysis

We conducted the statistical analysis using the R environment, version 4.1.3 (Vienna, Austria). Initially, we assessed continuous variables for normality using Q–Q plots and histograms. For descriptive statistics, we utilised the mean and standard deviation (SD) for normally distributed data or the median and interquartile range (IQR) for non-normally distributed data. Categorical variables were expressed as frequencies and percentages. Subsequently, we compared the characteristics of the three study groups (DR, no diabetic retinopathy and ungradable) using analysis of variance or the Kruskal–Wallis test for continuous variables and the chi-squared test or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables. We identified potential risk factors for DR using univariable logistic regression analysis, with DR status (patients with DR vs. patients without) as the dependent variable. Furthermore, we investigated the association of the following continuous variables: duration of DM, BMI and HbA1c with DR by categorising these variables, in line with previous studies [15, 16]. Additionally, we explored the ordinal variable categories (DM duration, BMI, education level and physical activity) for their association with DR using univariable logistic regression analysis. In each case, we estimated the effect of each category with the immediate lower category level used as a reference, independently of other variable categories. We constructed a multivariable logistic regression model to identify independent predictors of DR. Factors associated with DR at a significance level of p < 0.05 in univariable logistic regression were included in the model. BMI and HbA1c were treated as categorical variables, whereas age and DM duration were treated as continuous variables. Where appropriate, ordinal data were converted into dichotomous data on the basis of the exploratory univariable logistic regression findings to enhance clinical utility. The multivariable logistic regression model was further adjusted, as preplanned, to include known reported risk factors based on previous studies [5, 16, 17], regardless of the significance of the association. Associations with DR in univariable and multivariable logistic regressions were presented as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) along with the corresponding p values. We set the alpha level at 0.05.

3 Results

3.1 Study Participants

Clinical characteristics, demographics and anthropometric measures of study participants are indicated in Table 1. A total of 1163 patients with T2DM were eligible for the current study. The study participants were categorised into three groups on the basis of fundus photograph findings: 211 (18.1%) patients with DR, 761 (65.4%) without DR and 191 (16.4%) were classified as ungradable. The median age of all subjects was 62.1 years (IQR, 13), with 729 (62.7%) being female. Additionally, the median duration of diabetes mellitus was 11.1 years (IQR, 11), and the median BMI and HbA1c were 31.2 kg/m² (IQR, 7) and 8% (IQR, 2.5), respectively. The majority of patients were from Hebron city (489, 42%), married (1002, 86.2%) and housewives (705, 60.6%), and they had varying educational backgrounds, with primary school education being the most common (381, 32.8%) as shown in Table 1.

TABLE 1. Demographic characteristics of study participants.

Variable	All patients (n = 1163)	No diabetic retinopathy (n = 761)	Diabetic retinopathy (n = 211)	Ungradable (n = 191)	p
Sociodemographic factors
Age (year)	62.1 [13]	60.1 [13]	63.1 [11]	64.1 [12]	<0.001
Gender (male)	434, 37.3	267, 35.1	87, 41.2	80, 41.9	0.095
City n, %
Hebron	489, 42	320, 42	76, 36	93, 48.7	0.017^a
Bethlehem	451, 38.8	294, 38.6	89, 42.2	68, 35.6
Jerusalem	67, 5.8	53, 7	8, 3.8	6, 3.1
Ramallah	127, 10.9	81, 10.6	28, 13.3	18, 9.4
Qalqilya	29, 2.5	13, 1.7	10, 4.7	6, 3.1
Education level n, %
Illiterate	102, 8.8	56, 7.4	31, 14.7	15, 7.9	<0.001
Primary	381, 32.8	222, 29.2	86, 40.8	73, 38.2
Secondary	264, 22.7	187, 24.6	38, 18	39, 20.4
High school	250, 21.5	184, 24.2	35, 16.6	31, 16.2
Bachelor's degree or higher	166, 14.3	112, 14.7	21, 10	33, 17.3
Marital status n, %
Married	1002, 86.2	668, 87.8	179, 84.8	155, 81.2	0.208^a
Single	20, 1.7	11, 1.4	5, 2.4	4, 2.1
Divorced	140, 12	81, 10.6	27, 12.8	32, 16.8
Widow	1, 0.1	1, 0.1	0, 0	0, 0
Occupational status n, %
Housewife	705, 60.6	477, 62.7	120, 56.9	108, 56.5	0.006^a
Student	2, 0.2	1, 0.1	0, 0	1, 0.5
Employed	209, 18	144, 18.9	35, 16.6	30, 15.7
Unemployed	41, 3.5	29, 3.8	4, 1.9	8, 4.2
Retired	206, 17.7	110, 14.5	52, 24.6	44, 23
Medical-related factors
Duration of DM (year)	11.1 [11]	8.1 [8]	16.1 [11]	14.1 [10]	<0.001
DM duration categories n, %
<5 years	275, 23.6	231, 30.4	15, 7.1	29, 15.2	<0.001
5–10 years	292, 25.1	221, 29	39, 18.5	32, 16.8
10–15 years	248, 21.3	156, 20.5	50, 23.7	42, 22
15–20 years	182, 15.6	86, 11.3	52, 24.6	44, 23
>20 years	166, 14.3	67, 8.8	55, 26.1	44, 23
BMI (kg/m²)	31.2 [7]	31.3 [7.4]	30.1 [6.8]	31.2 [6]	0.202
BMI categories n, %
<25 kg/m²	118, 10.1	72, 9.5	27, 12.8	19, 12.8	0.253
25–29.9 kg/m²	360, 31	277, 29.8	74, 35.1	59, 30.9
≥30 kg/m²	685, 58.9	462, 60.7	110, 52.1	113, 59.2
HbA1c (%)	8 [2.5]	7.9 [2.7]	8.5 [2.8]	8 [3]	<0.001
HbA1c categories n, %
HbA1c ≤7%	388, 33.4	281, 36.9	44, 20.9	63, 33	<0.001
HbA1c >7%	775, 66.6	480, 63.1	167, 79.1	128, 67	<0.001
Hypertension disease n, %	728, 62.6	457, 60.1	145, 68.7	126, 66	0.041
Cardiovascular diseases n, %	119, 10.2	70, 9.2	24, 11.4	25, 13.1	0.237
Hyperlipidaemia n, %	397, 34.1	244, 32.1	81, 38.4	72, 37.7	0.121
Health behaviour–related factors
Smoking n, %	173, 14.9	114, 15	31, 14.7	28, 14.7	>0.99
Physical activity n, %
Inactive	233, 20	124, 16.3	67, 31.8	42, 22	<0.001
<150 min/week	793, 68.2	539, 70.8	124, 58.8	130, 68.1
150–300 min/week	137, 11.8	98, 12.9	20, 9.5	19, 9.9
Medications n, %
Insulin	426, 36.6	223, 29.3	115, 54.5	88, 46.1	<0.001
Oral antidiabetic medications	1080, 92.9	717, 94.2	196, 92.9	167, 87.4	0.005

Note: Continuous variables are presented as median [interquartile range], whereas categorical variables are expressed as frequencies and percentages. p values were obtained using the Kruskal–Wallis test for continuous variables and the chi-squared test for categorical variables.
Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; DM, diabetes mellitus; HbA1c, glycated haemoglobin.
^a p value was obtained through the Fisher exact test. p value <0.05 is considered significant.

3.2 Risk Factors for Diabetic Retinopathy

On the basis of the univariable logistic regression analysis, several factors have shown significant associations with DR. Older age, being retired, longer diabetes duration, higher HbA1c levels, having hypertension and being on insulin therapy were significantly associated with higher odds of DR (p < 0.05; Table 2), whereas patients with a secondary school level of education or higher, a BMI ≥30 kg/m² compared with <25 kg/m², and those who are physically active, as opposed to inactive, showed a significantly lower odds of having DR (p < 0.05). On the contrary, the marital status, history of cardiovascular diseases, hyperlipidaemia and receiving oral hypoglycaemic medications did not exhibit a significant association with the risk of DR.

TABLE 2. Univariable logistic regression analysis to identify factors associated with diabetic retinopathy.

Variable	COR (95% CI)	p
Sociodemographic factors
Age (per year)	1.04 (1.02–1.06)	<0.001
Gender (male)	1.30 (0.95–1.77)	0.101
Education level
Illiterate	1 (ref)	—
Primary	0.70 (0.42–1.16)	0.166
Secondary	0.37 (0.21–0.64)	<0.001
High school	0.34 (0.19–0.61)	<0.001
Bachelor's degree or higher	0.34 (0.18–0.64)	<0.001
Marital status
Married	1 (ref)	—
Single	1.70 (0.58–4.94)	0.333
Divorced	1.24 (0.78–1.98)	0.358
Widow	0.00 (0.00–NA)	0.982
Occupational status
Employed	1 (ref)	—
Student	0.00 (0.00–NA)	0.982
Housewife	1.04 (0.68–1.58)	0.872
Unemployed	0.57 (0.19–1.72)	0.317
Retired	1.94 (1.19–3.19)	0.009
Medical-related factors
Duration of DM (per year)	1.10 (1.08–1.12)	<0.001
DM duration (per 5 years)	1.62 (1.45–1.80)	<0.001
DM duration categories
<5 years	1 (ref)	—
5–10 years	2.72 (1.46–5.07)	0.002
10–15 years	4.94 (2.68–9.10)	<0.001
15–20 years	9.31 (4.98–17.41)	<0.001
>20 years	12.64 (6.72–23.79)	<0.001
BMI (kg/m²)	0.98 (0.95–1.004)	0.088
BMI categories
<25 kg/m²	1 (ref)	—
25–29.9 kg/m²	0.87 (0.52–1.45)	0.594
≥30 kg/m²	0.63 (0.39–1.04)	0.069
HbA1c (%)	1.14 (1.06–1.22)	<0.001
HbA1c categories
HbA1c ≤7%	1 (ref)	—
HbA1c >7%	2.22 (1.55–3.20)	<0.001
Hypertension disease	1.46 (1.06–2.02)	0.022
Cardiovascular diseases	1.27 (0.78–2.07)	0.345
Hyperlipidaemia	1.32 (0.96–1.81)	0.085
Health behaviour–related factors
Smoking	0.98 (0.64–1.50)	0.917
Physical activity
Inactive	1 (ref)	—
<150 min/week	0.43 (0.30–0.61)	<0.001
150–300 min/week	0.38 (0.21–0.66)	<0.001
Medications
Insulin	2.89 (2.11–3.95)	<0.001
Oral antidiabetic medications	0.80 (0.44–1.47)	0.476

Note: Odds ratios and p values were obtained from logistic regression analysis with diabetic retinopathy (vs. no diabetic retinopathy) as the dependent variable. p value <0.05 is considered significant.
Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; CI, confidence interval; COR, crude odds ratio; DM, diabetes mellitus; HbA1c, glycated haemoglobin; ref, reference; vs., versus.

To investigate the influence of transitioning between ordinal variable categories on the risk of DR, we conducted an exploratory univariable logistic regression analysis in which we compared each category level with the immediately lower one, as illustrated in Table 3. We found that the transition from primary to secondary school education level showed a significant reduction in the odds of having DR, with an OR of 0.53 (95% CI, 0.34–0.81), p = 0.003. Additionally, for each 5-year increase in the duration of DM, there was a significantly higher chance of developing DR, except for patients with a DM duration of ≥20 years, who did not exhibit a significant difference compared with patients having DM for 15–20 years (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.83–2.23; p = 0.227). Compared with overweight individuals, obese patients showed a marginally significant difference (p = 0.066) with a lower likelihood of having DR (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.52–1.02). Among physically active patients, the level of physical activity did not demonstrate a significant impact on the development of DR (OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.53–1.49; p = 0.651).

TABLE 3. Univariable logistic regression analysis to outline the impact of ordinal variables category transitions on the risk of diabetic retinopathy.

Variable^a	COR (95% CI)	p
Education level
Primary (vs. illiterate)	0.70 (0.42–1.16)	0.166
Secondary (vs. primary)	0.53 (0.34–0.81)	0.003
High school (vs. secondary)	0.94 (0.57–1.55)	0.797
Bachelor's degree or higher (vs. high school)	0.99 (0.55–1.78)	0.962
DM duration categories
5–10 years (vs. <5 years)	2.72 (1.46–5.07)	0.002
10–15 years (vs. 5–10 years)	1.82 (1.14–2.90)	0.012
15–20 years (vs. 10–15 years)	1.89 (1.18–3.02)	0.008
>20 years (vs. 15–20 years)	1.36 (0.83–2.23)	0.227
BMI categories
25–29.9 kg/m² (vs. <25 kg/m²)	0.87 (0.52–1.45)	0.594
≥30 kg/m² (vs. 25–29.9 kg/m²)	0.73 (0.52–1.02)	0.066
Physical activity
<150 min/week (vs. inactive)	0.43 (0.30–0.61)	<0.001
150–300 min/week (vs. <150 min/week)	0.89 (0.53–1.49)	0.651

Note: Odds ratios and p values were obtained from logistic regression analysis with diabetic retinopathy (vs. no diabetic retinopathy) as the dependent variable. p value <0.05 is considered significant.
Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; CI, confidence interval; COR, crude odds ratio; DM, diabetes mellitus; vs., versus.
^a The effect of each category within the variable was determined separately, with the immediate lower category level used as a reference.

3.3 Identification of Independent Predictors for Diabetic Retinopathy

To identify the independent predictors of DR, we conducted a multivariable logistic regression analysis, adjusting for all factors that showed a significant association with DR development in the univariable logistic regression. As predetermined, the model was additionally adjusted for gender, cardiovascular diseases and hyperlipidaemia. Moreover, the educational level and physical activity, based on the findings from the univariable logistic regression in Tables 2 and 3, were treated as dichotomous variables. As shown in Table 4, both a secondary school or higher education level and obesity were independently associated with a lower likelihood of having DR, with adjusted ORs of 0.46 (95% CI, 0.32–0.65; p < 0.001) and 0.58 (95% CI, 0.34–0.99; p = 0.046). The duration of DM was independently associated with the development of DR. We found that for every 5-year increase in DM duration, the odds of having DR increased by 45% (95% CI, 1.27–1.64; p < 0.001). Furthermore, patients with DR were more likely to have HbA1c levels >7%, be physically inactive and receive insulin; all of these factors independently predicted the presence of DR. Our results revealed that patients with DR were twice as likely to be physically inactive, with an adjusted OR of 2.05 (95% CI, 1.39–3.03), p < 0.001. The multivariable analysis revealed no correlation between age, retirement and hypertension with DR, even though this association was observed in the univariable analysis (Table 4).

TABLE 4. Multivariable logistic regression model to identify independent predictors of diabetic retinopathy.

Variable	Adjusted OR (95% CI)	Adjusted p value
Age (per year)	1.01 (0.98–1.03)	0.508
Gender (male)	1.12 (0.32–3.92)	0.863
Education level
Secondary school or higher education	0.46 (0.32–0.65)	<0.001
Occupational status
Employed	1 (ref)	—
Student	0.00 (0.00–NA)	0.982
Housewife	0.77 (0.21–2.75)	0.685
Unemployed	0.55 (0.17–1.78)	0.316
Retired	1.29 (0.73–2.28)	0.371
DM duration (per 5 years)	1.45 (1.27–1.64)	<0.001
BMI categories
<25 kg/m²	1 (ref)	—
25–29.9 kg/m²	0.81 (0.46–1.42)	0.462
≥30 kg/m²	0.58 (0.34–0.99)	0.046
HbA1c categories
HbA1c >7% (vs. ≤7%)	1.63 (1.08–2.45)	0.02
Hypertension disease	1.22 (0.83–1.78)	0.305
Cardiovascular diseases	0.97 (0.55–1.71)	0.913
Hyperlipidaemia	1.12 (0.77–1.62)	0.56
Physical activity
Inactive (vs. active)	2.05 (1.39–3.03)	<0.001
Medications
Insulin (yes)	1.53 (1.04–2.24)	0.03

Note: Odds ratios and p values were obtained from multivariable logistic regression analysis with diabetic retinopathy (vs. no diabetic retinopathy) as the dependent variable. p value <0.05 is considered significant. p values below the significance level are highlighted in bold.
Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; CI, confidence interval; DM, diabetes mellitus; OR, odds ratio; ref, reference; vs., versus.

4 Discussion

Diabetic retinopathy has been reported as the most prevalent complication accounting for approximately 17.3% among Palestinian diabetic patients [18]. The primary factor contributing to the risk of DR is primarily linked to inadequate glycaemic control and the duration of diabetes. A recent study conducted in the northern provinces of Palestine, employing a cross-sectional approach, found that the incidence of DR was 30%, with 12.2% of cases classified as proliferative DR. The study also identified hypertension, uncontrolled T2DM and the duration of diabetes as the key factors associated with the development of DR. Furthermore, the duration of diabetes emerged as a significant predictor for the occurrence of proliferative DR [1]. Herein, we conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study to investigate the risk factors of DR among 1163 patients with T2DM in Palestine. Our study showed that an extended duration of T2DM, HbA1c levels exceeding 7%, lack of physical activity and the use of insulin were all independently linked to the occurrence of DR. Previous studies have demonstrated a correlation between the development of DR and an extended duration of diabetes, poorly controlled hyperglycaemia and hypertension. Moreover, elevated and erratic levels of HbA1c play a noteworthy role in the initiation and progression of DR indicating that prolonged exposure to hyperglycaemia contributes to microvascular complications [6, 7]. Other contributing risk factors include nephropathy, dyslipidaemia, smoking, an earlier onset of diabetes and a higher BMI have been reported. Importantly, these factors can be altered to mitigate the advancement of DR [8-11]. Recent investigations have highlighted a positive link between physical activity and both the onset and severity of DR. However, the specific type and frequency of physical activity necessary to exert a significant impact on DR have not been precisely determined [12, 19].

A previous study in Palestine showed that the probability of a patient with ≥20 years of diabetes to develop PDR is seven times higher than other patients with a diabetes duration of 5–10 years [20]. Another Palestinian study also found that those aged 40 years and more had double the likelihood of obtaining DR in comparison with their younger counterparts [21]. A retrospective study enrolled 373 patients with diabetes reported several factors contributing to the development of DR, including older age, male gender, a longer duration of diabetes, receiving only insulin therapy and high systolic blood pressure. A notable correlation was observed between an extended duration of T2DM and the occurrence of DR [22]. Consistent results supporting this association were identified in various other studies [15, 23-26], all of which regarded prolonged diabetes duration as a predictive factor for the development of DR [27]. In comparison, our analysis identified several demographic and clinical factors associated with the development of DR. Diabetes duration and insulin therapy were found to be significant risk factors, aligning with the results reported in aforementioned studies. These associations are consistent with other previous studies, such as those carried out in the Indian population, by which Raman et al. and Khan et al. found that insulin was a risk factor for DR in different age-of-onset groups [28, 29]. In consistent with our findings, several studies showed no association between gender and the occurrence of DR [15, 30, 31]. In contrast, other studies revealed an increase in the incidence of DR in male patients [26, 30].

On the contrary, our study identified a significant association between educational level and DR, indicating that patients with a secondary school education or higher had a lower likelihood of developing DR compared with those with a lower educational level. In line with our results, Dweib and El Sharif [21] showed that Palestinian individuals lacking basic literacy skills exhibited a higher likelihood of receiving a retinopathy diagnosis than those with a secondary education, diploma or college education. Similar findings have been reported in studies conducted in Malaysia and India, suggesting that higher educational attainment may be protective against DR [32, 33]. A study conducted on 496 Ethiopian participants revealed that individuals with an educational level of diploma and above are at a significantly lower risk of developing DR than those with lower educational levels [34]. This emphasises the importance of considering socioeconomic factors in the context of diabetic complications.

Moreover, several studies revealed no correlation between BMI and the onset of DR [15, 35], whereas others indicated that higher BMI was positively associated with DR [36-38]. Inverse relationship between BMI and DR severity was also reported in Asian patients with T2DM, in which a higher BMI appeared to confer a protective effect on DR, whereas higher waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) was associated with the presence and severity of DR in women [39]. Our results indicated that BMI is a significant factor associated with the risk of DR.

Considerable evidence underscored the connection between physical inactivity and the onset and complications of diabetes. However, there is limited knowledge regarding the relationship between physical inactivity and DR in terms of its onset, progression and severity. Certain health professionals have integrated physical activity as a crucial component of disease prevention and management [19]. Despite robust evidence supporting the relationship between physical activity and disease status, a significant proportion of the global population failed to meet the minimum recommended levels of physical activity outlined by organisations such as the American College of Sports Medicine and other Public Health and Exercise Authorities [40, 41]. Recent studies have brought attention to the positive association between physical activity and both the onset and severity of DR. Nevertheless, the specific type and frequency of physical activity required to have a significant impact on DR have not been precisely determined [19]. A study by Aro et al. investigated whether the implementation of lifestyle changes early in the onset of diabetes would yield favourable effects on the occurrence of DR. Their findings indicated a positive impact of incorporating lifestyle changes into diabetes management plans, specifically in delaying the progression or onset of DR [42, 43]. Beijing Eye Study conducted on 3468 participants showed that a higher level of physical activity was linked to a reduced prevalence of DR [44]. A review of meta-analyses conducted in 2022 revealed that sedentary behaviour was linked to an increased risk of DR [45]. Consistently, our study confirmed the protective effect of being physically active against the development of DR compared with those who are inactive.

The optimal HbA1c cut-off for detecting any DR was identified as 49 mmol/mol (6.6%), whereas for moderate or severe retinopathy, the cut-off was determined to be 52 mmol/mol (6.9%) [46]. Our study also showed that the high levels of HbA1c are associated with an increased risk of DR occurrence specifically those with levels above the cut-off of 7%. Another Palestinian study detected that the glycaemic control as indicated by the median of the HbA1c level was also associated with PDR [20]. Hsu et al. concluded that the development or progression of DR in T2DM may be influenced by short-term glycaemic fluctuation, whereas long-term glycaemic fluctuation, as indicated by HbA1c levels, seems to play a more significant role in the occurrence of retinopathy in patients [47]. Another study verified that the suggested HbA1c threshold of 48 mmol/mol (6.5%) was effective in accurately detecting DR [46].

In the current study, univariable analysis showed that occupational status has a significant impact on the risk of DR in which retirement increases the chance of DR development. However, this was not evident in the multivariable analysis. Lee [48] observed that individuals with occupations tend to undergo more frequent and dedicated screening processes, indirectly leading to a reduced risk of DR. Similarly, Klein et al. [49] found that employed individuals have a lower risk of DR development compared with nonemployed patients.

The role of dyslipidaemia in DR has gained increased attention, although findings remain contentious. Previous studies have indicated an association between dyslipidaemia and DR, yet the causal effect remains uncertain. Ereqat et al. [20] revealed that the odds for patients with dyslipidaemia to get PDR were 2.74 times higher than patients with NPDR. Yau et al. [2] discovered a link between higher total serum cholesterol and an increased risk of diabetic macular oedema, emphasising the significance of dyslipidaemia, hyperglycaemia and hypertension as major modifiable risk factors for all types of DR. Another study provided robust evidence supporting the notion that dyslipidaemia promotes the development of DR through increased secretion of vascular endothelial growth factors A, C and D, as well as placental growth factor in patients with DR [50]. Additionally, elevated lipids are linked to endothelial dysfunction, resulting in hemodynamic changes, retinal tissue hypoxia, microcirculatory disorders and the breakdown of the blood–retinal barrier, contributing to the development of DR [51]. In contrast, Wong et al. [52] presented conflicting reports, suggesting that higher total cholesterol levels were associated with reduced odds of DR. Although our results did not show a clear causal relationship between hyperlipidaemia and DR, the mechanism behind them still deserves further investigation.

Although some studies demonstrated that persistent and heavy smoking increases the risk of microvascular complications, including nephropathy and neuropathy, their findings did not provide clear and interpretable evidence regarding the association between smoking and retinopathy [53]. Additionally, the majority of studies showed that smoking is not likely to be an important risk factor for DR [30, 35, 54, 55]. However, a previous Palestinian study showed that smoking status is marginally associated with the severity of DR [20]. In contrast, the findings of this study demonstrated no association between smoking status and the development of DR.

In Palestine, the community-based screening process for DR faces numerous challenges and obstacles, like checkpoints that hinder the accessibility and reachability of people to primary care centres. Despite these difficulties, implementing outreach programs and utilising the fundus cameras could significantly enhance health outcomes, especially for those who residing in neglected areas. The robustness of this study is affirmed by the substantial number of participants and the representation of the West Bank population, encompassing patients from different districts. The findings of our study hold potential utility for healthcare practitioners in Palestine, as they can aid in the early detection and screening of individuals at a high risk of developing DR.

On the contrary, it is important to recognise that the present study has certain limitations. These limitations arise from the absence of data concerning other diabetic complications, including nephropathy and neuropathy. The fundus camera used to determine the status of DR was unable to confirm the diagnosis in 191 (16.4%) participants. These patients were referred to an ophthalmologist for follow-up, and their final diagnosis data are not available. Additionally, we did not investigate factors related to the severity of DR, as data on DR grade and severity were not available for the majority of the studied patients.

In conclusion, this study emphasises particular significance of DR and its correlation with several crucial factors that could potentially expedite the development of DR in patients diagnosed with T2DM within Palestinian community. Our study indicated that longer duration of T2DM, HbA1c >7%, physical inactivity and insulin use were all independently associated with the presence of DR. Furthermore, a secondary or higher educational level and obesity demonstrated independent and inverse associations with the development of DR. Such identification can contribute to the improvement of patient monitoring and the reduction in disease exacerbation. Additional studies are needed to declare these associations obviously and to assess the awareness of DR among patients with diabetes.

Author Contributions

O.N.S., M.A., S.E., L.N.E.D. and S.I. conceptualized the study; L.N.E.D. and S.I. were responsible for resources; S.E. and S.I. were responsible for project administration and supervision; M.A. was responsible for data curation, and formal analysis; L.N.E.D. and S.I. were responsible for investigation; M.A. and S.E. were responsible for methodology; S.E. and S.I. were responsible for validation, and visualization; O.N.S. wrote the original draft; O.N.S., M.A., S.E., L.N.E.D. and S.I. reviewed and edited the manuscript.

Acknowledgements

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the individuals whose support and guidance have been instrumental in completing this study. We extend our deepest appreciation to Dr. Ahmed Ma'ali, the Chief Executive Officer of St. John Eye Hospital; Dr. Fadi Al-Atrash, the Chief Executive Officer of Augusta Victoria Hospital; and Dr. Hani Abdeen, Dean of the Faculty of Medicine at Al-Quds University; for their visionary leadership and continuous encouragement. Their insightful perspectives and strategic insights have significantly contributed to the depth and breadth of this manuscript. We are also grateful to the entire team at MOH, UNRWA, Juzoor for Health & Social Development and Augusta Victoria Hospital, especially Ziad Baradieh, the coordinator nurse, for their collaboration and valuable input.

Ethics Statement

Informed consent were received from all participants before starting the work. The study procedure was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Augusta Victoria Hospital (AVH) with reference number of AVH-2023.

Consent

Written consent was obtained from the participants regarding publishing this research in accordance with the journal's patient consent policy.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Open Research

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

1J. M. Forbes and M. E. Cooper, “Mechanisms of Diabetic Complications,” Physiological Reviews 93, no. 1 (2013): 137–188.
10.1152/physrev.00045.2011
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
2J. W. Yau, S. L. Rogers, R. Kawasaki, et al., “Global Prevalence and Major Risk Factors of Diabetic Retinopathy,” Diabetes Care 35, no. 3 (2012): 556–564.
10.2337/dc11-1909
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
3L. Ruta, D. J. Magliano, R. Lemesurier, H. R. Taylor, P. Z. Zimmet, and J. E. Shaw, “Prevalence of Diabetic Retinopathy in Type 2 Diabetes in Developing and Developed Countries,” Diabetic Medicine 30, no. 4 (2013): 387–398.
10.1111/dme.12119
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
4Z. L. Teo, Y. C. Tham, M. Yu, et al., “Global Prevalence of Diabetic Retinopathy and Projection of Burden Through 2045: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” Ophthalmology 128, no. 11 (2021): 1580–1591.
10.1016/j.ophtha.2021.04.027
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
5D. S. W. Ting, G. C. M. Cheung, and T. Y. Wong, “Diabetic Retinopathy: Global Prevalence, Major Risk Factors, Screening Practices and Public Health Challenges: A Review,” Clinical & Experimental Ophthalmology 44, no. 4 (2016): 260–277.
10.1111/ceo.12696
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
6D. P. Hainsworth, I. Bebu, L. P. Aiello, et al., “Risk Factors for Retinopathy in Type 1 Diabetes: The DCCT/EDIC Study,” Diabetes Care 42, no. 5 (2019): 875–882.
10.2337/dc18-2308
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
7K. H. Song, J. S. Jeong, M. K. Kim, et al., “Discordance in Risk Factors for the Progression of Diabetic Retinopathy and Diabetic Nephropathy in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus,” Journal of Diabetes Investigation 10, no. 3 (2019): 745–752.
10.1111/jdi.12953
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
8R. O. Estacio, E. McFarling, S. Biggerstaff, B. W. Jeffers, D. Johnson, and R. W. Schrier, “Overt Albuminuria Predicts Diabetic Retinopathy in Hispanics With NIDDM,” American Journal of Kidney Diseases 31, no. 6 (1998): 947–953.
10.1053/ajkd.1998.v31.pm9631838
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
9E. Y. Chew, M. D. Davis, R. P. Danis, et al., “The Effects of Medical Management on the Progression of Diabetic Retinopathy in Persons With Type 2 Diabetes: The Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) Eye Study,” Ophthalmology 121, no. 12 (2014): 2443–2451.
10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.07.019
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
10S. Kaštelan, M. Tomić, A. Gverović Antunica, S. Ljubić, J. Salopek Rabatić, and M. Karabatić, “Body Mass Index: A Risk Factor for Retinopathy in Type 2 Diabetic Patients,” Mediators of Inflammation 2013 (2013): 436329.
10.1155/2013/436329
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
11M. Chen, Y. Wang, P. Feng, et al., “Association Between Age at Type 2 Diabetes Onset and Diabetic Retinopathy: A Double-Center Retrospective Study,” Journal of Diabetes Research 2023 (2023): 5919468.
10.1155/2023/5919468
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
12B. E. Kobrin Klein, “Overview of Epidemiologic Studies of Diabetic Retinopathy,” Ophthalmic Epidemiology 14, no. 4 (2007): 179–183.
10.1080/09286580701396720
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
13 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study Research Group, “Early Photocoagulation for Diabetic Retinopathy. ETDRS Report Number 9,” Ophthalmology 98, no. 5 (1991): 766–785.
10.1016/S0161-6420(13)38011-7
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
14 World Health Organization, “Global Report on Diabetes” (2016), https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241565257.
Google Scholar
15V. C. Lima, G. C. Cavalieri, M. C. Lima, N. O. Nazario, and G. C. Lima, “Risk Factors for Diabetic Retinopathy: A Case–Control Study,” International Journal of Retina and Vitreous 2, no. 1 (2016): 1–7.
10.1186/s40942-016-0047-6
PubMed Google Scholar
16Y. Liu, J. Yang, L. Tao, et al., “Risk Factors of Diabetic Retinopathy and Sight-Threatening Diabetic Retinopathy: A Cross-Sectional Study of 13 473 Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Mainland China,” BMJ Open 7, no. 9 (2017): e016280.
10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016280
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
17C.-Y. Hsu, C. M. Lee, K. Y. Chou, et al., “The Association of Diabetic Retinopathy and Cardiovascular Disease: A 13-Year Nationwide Population-Based Cohort Study,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 15 (2021): 8106.
10.3390/ijerph18158106
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
18F. E. Hirai, J. M. Tielsch, B. E. K. Klein, and R. Klein, “Ten-Year Change in Vision-Related Quality of Life in Type 1 Diabetes: Wisconsin Epidemiologic Study of Diabetic Retinopathy,” Ophthalmology 118, no. 2 (2011): 353–358.
10.1016/j.ophtha.2010.06.022
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
19Y. AlQabandi, S. A. Nandula, C. S. Boddepalli, et al., “Physical Activity Status and Diabetic Retinopathy: A Review,” Cureus 14, no. 8 (2022): e28238.
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
20S. Ereqat, M. Abdelhafez, S. Iriqat, et al., “Aldose Reductase (− 106) C/T Gene Polymorphism and Associated Risk Factors With Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy in Palestine: A Cross Sectional Study,” Health Science Reports 6, no. 10 (2023): e1605.
10.1002/hsr2.1605
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
21M. Dweib and N. El Sharif, “Diabetes-Related Microvascular Complications in Primary Health Care Settings in the West Bank, Palestine,” Journal of Clinical Medicine 12, no. 21 (2023): 6719.
10.3390/jcm12216719
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
22G. N. Gelcho and F. S. Gari, “Time to Diabetic Retinopathy and Its Risk Factors Among Diabetes Mellitus Patients in Jimma University Medical Center, Jimma, Southwest Ethiopia,” Ethiopian Journal of Health Sciences 32, no. 5 (2022): 937–946.
10.4314/ejhs.v32i5.9
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
23L. Yin, D. Zhang, Q. Ren, X. Su, and Z. Sun, “Prevalence and Risk Factors of Diabetic Retinopathy in Diabetic Patients: A Community Based Cross-Sectional Study,” Medicine 99, no. 9 (2020): e19236.
10.1097/MD.0000000000019236
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
24A. V. Chobanian, G. L. Bakris, H. R. Black, et al., “The Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure: The JNC 7 Report,” JAMA 289, no. 19 (2003): 2560–2571.
10.1001/jama.289.19.2560
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
25E. M. Kohner, S. J. Aldington, I. M. Stratton, et al., “United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study, 30: Diabetic Retinopathy at Diagnosis of Non–Insulin-Dependent Diabetes Mellitus and Associated Risk Factors,” Archives of Ophthalmology 116, no. 3 (1998): 297–303.
10.1001/archopht.116.3.297
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
26X. Zhang, J. B. Saaddine, C. F. Chou, et al., “Prevalence of Diabetic Retinopathy in the United States, 2005–2008,” JAMA 304, no. 6 (2010): 649–656.
10.1001/jama.2010.1111
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
27M. A. Bamashmus, A. A. Gunaid, and R. B. Khandekar, “Diabetic Retinopathy, Visual Impairment and Ocular Status Among Patients With Diabetes Mellitus in Yemen: A Hospital-Based Study,” Indian Journal of Ophthalmology 57, no. 4 (2009): 293–298.
10.4103/0301-4738.53055
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
28R. Raman, P. K. Rani, S. Reddi Rachepalle, et al., “Prevalence of Diabetic Retinopathy in India: Sankara Nethralaya Diabetic Retinopathy Epidemiology and Molecular Genetics Study Report 2,” Ophthalmology 116, no. 2 (2009): 311–318.
10.1016/j.ophtha.2008.09.010
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
29R. Khan, S. Singh, J. Surya, T. Sharma, V. Kulothunga, and R. Raman, “Age of Onset of Diabetes and Its Comparison With Prevalence and Risk Factors for Diabetic Retinopathy in a Rural Population of India,” Ophthalmic Research 61, no. 4 (2019): 236–242.
10.1159/000496732
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
30J. Y. Yang, N. K. Kim, Y. J. Lee, et al., “Prevalence and Factors Associated With Diabetic Retinopathy in a Korean Adult Population: The 2008–2009 Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey,” Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice 102, no. 3 (2013): 218–224.
10.1016/j.diabres.2013.10.016
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
31B. S. Jost, É. Hilgemberg, E. B. Rodrigues, A. F. Daniotti, and E. L. Bonamigo, “Prevalence of Diabetic Retinopathy in Patients Affected by Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in the City of Luzerna-SC,” Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia 73 (2010): 259–265.
10.1590/S0004-27492010000300010
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
32Y. Wang, Z. Lin, G. Zhai, et al., “Prevalence of and Risk Factors for Diabetic Retinopathy and Diabetic Macular Edema in Patients With Early-and Late-Onset Diabetes Mellitus,” Ophthalmic Research 65, no. 3 (2022): 293–299.
10.1159/000508335
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
33R. Rajalakshmi, G. UmaSankari, S. Sivaprasad, et al., “Prevalence and Risk Factors for Diabetic Retinopathy in Prediabetes in Asian Indians,” Journal of Diabetes and Its Complications 36, no. 3 (2022): 108131.
10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2022.108131
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
34A. F. Zegeye, Y. Z. Temachu, and C. K. Mekonnen, “Prevalence and Factors Associated With Diabetes Retinopathy Among Type 2 Diabetic Patients at Northwest Amhara Comprehensive Specialized Hospitals, Northwest Ethiopia 2021,” BMC Ophthalmology 23, no. 1 (2023): 9.
10.1186/s12886-022-02746-8
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
35Y. Zhou, Y. Zhang, K. Shi, and C. Wang, “Body Mass Index and Risk of Diabetic Retinopathy: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review,” Medicine 96, no. 22 (2017): e6754.
10.1097/MD.0000000000006754
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
36S. Jones and R. Edwards, “Diabetic Retinopathy Screening: A Systematic Review of the Economic Evidence,” Diabetic Medicine 27, no. 3 (2010): 249–256.
10.1111/j.1464-5491.2009.02870.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
37N. Cheung and T. Y. Wong, “Obesity and Eye Diseases,” Survey of Ophthalmology 52, no. 2 (2007): 180–195.
10.1016/j.survophthal.2006.12.003
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
38M. Dirani, J. Xie, E. Fenwick, et al., “Are Obesity and Anthropometry Risk Factors for Diabetic Retinopathy? The Diabetes Management Project,” Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science 52, no. 7 (2011): 4416–4421.
10.1167/iovs.11-7208
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
39R. E. K. Man, C. Sabanayagam, P. P. C. Chiang, et al., “Differential Association of Generalized and Abdominal Obesity With Diabetic Retinopathy in Asian Patients With Type 2 Diabetes,” JAMA Ophthalmology 134, no. 3 (2016): 251–257.
10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2015.5103
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
40 American College of Sports Medicine, Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription (Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins, 1991).
Google Scholar
41 World Health Organization, Global Recommendations on Physical Activity for Health (Geneva: World Health Organization, 2010).
Google Scholar
42R. Mendes, N. Sousa, V. M. Reis, and J. L. Themudo-Barata, “Prevention of Exercise-Related Injuries and Adverse Events in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes,” Postgraduate Medical Journal 89, no. 1058 (2013): 715–721.
10.1136/postgradmedj-2013-132222
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
43A. Aro, A. Kauppinen, P. Summanen, et al., “Life Style Intervention Improves Retinopathy Status—The Finnish Diabetes Prevention Study,” Nutrients 11, no. 7 (2019): 1691.
10.3390/nu11071691
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
44Y. X. Wang, W. B. Wei, L. Xu, and J. B. Jonas, “Physical Activity and Eye Diseases. The Beijing Eye Study,” Acta Ophthalmologica 97, no. 3 (2019): 325–331.
10.1111/aos.13962
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
45M. Trott, R. Driscoll, and S. Pardhan, “Associations Between Diabetic Retinopathy and Modifiable Risk Factors: An Umbrella Review of Meta-Analyses,” Diabetic Medicine 39, no. 6 (2022): e14796.
10.1111/dme.14796
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
46N. H. Cho, T. H. Kim, S. J. Woo, et al., “Optimal HbA1c Cutoff for Detecting Diabetic Retinopathy,” Acta Diabetologica 50 (2013): 837–842.
10.1007/s00592-013-0452-3
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
47C.-R. Hsu, Y.-T. Chen, and W. H.-H. Sheu, “Glycemic Variability and Diabetes Retinopathy: A Missing Link,” Journal of Diabetes and Its Complications 29, no. 2 (2015): 302–306.
10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2014.11.013
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
48Y.-H. Lee, “Socioeconomic Differences Among Community-Dwelling Diabetic Adults Screened for Diabetic Retinopathy and Nephropathy: The 2015 Korean Community Health Survey,” PLoS One 13, no. 1 (2018): e0191496.
10.1371/journal.pone.0191496
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
49R. Klein, B. E. K. Klein, S. C. Jensen, and S. E. Moss, “The Relation of Socioeconomic Factors to the Incidence of Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy and Loss of Vision,” Ophthalmology 101, no. 1 (1994): 68–76.
10.1016/S0161-6420(94)31354-6
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
50X. Zhang, B. Qiu, Q. Wang, et al., “Dysregulated Serum Lipid Metabolism Promotes the Occurrence and Development of Diabetic Retinopathy Associated With Upregulated Circulating Levels of VEGF-A, VEGF-D, and PlGF,” Frontiers in Medicine 8 (2021): 779413.
10.3389/fmed.2021.779413
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
51T. Li and Y. Wu, “Correlation of Glucose and Lipid Metabolism Levels and Serum Uric Acid Levels With Diabetic Retinopathy in Type 2 Diabetic Mellitus Patients,” Emergency Medicine International 2022 (2022): 9201566.
10.1155/2022/9201566
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
52T. Y. Wong, N. Cheung, W. T. Tay, et al., “Prevalence and Risk Factors for Diabetic Retinopathy: The Singapore Malay Eye Study,” Ophthalmology 115, no. 11 (2008): 1869–1875.
10.1016/j.ophtha.2008.05.014
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
53S. K. Park, M. H. Kim, J. Y. Jung, et al., “Changes in Smoking Status, Amount of Smoking and Their Relation to the Risk of Microvascular Complications in Men With Diabetes Mellitus,” Diabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews 39, no. 8 (2023): e3697.
10.1002/dmrr.3697
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
54S. E. Moss, R. Klein, and B. E. Klein, “Cigarette Smoking and Ten-Year Progression of Diabetic Retinopathy,” Ophthalmology 103, no. 9 (1996): 1438–1442.
10.1016/S0161-6420(96)30486-7
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
55R. Klein, B. E. Klein, and M. D. Davis, “Is Cigarette Smoking Associated With Diabetic Retinopathy?” American Journal of Epidemiology 118, no. 2 (1983): 228–238.
10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a113630
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar

Citing Literature

Volume7, Issue4

July 2024

e494

Identification of Risk Factors for the Development of Diabetic Retinopathy Among Palestinian Adults With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Cross-Sectional Study

ABSTRACT

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

1 Introduction

2 Materials and Methods

2.1 Study Participants and Data Collection

2.2 Diagnosis of Diabetic Retinopathy

2.3 Statistical Analysis

3 Results

3.1 Study Participants

3.2 Risk Factors for Diabetic Retinopathy

3.3 Identification of Independent Predictors for Diabetic Retinopathy

4 Discussion

Author Contributions

Acknowledgements

Ethics Statement

Consent

Conflicts of Interest

Open Research

Data Availability Statement

References

Citing Literature

References

Information

About Wiley Online Library

Help & Support

Opportunities

Connect with Wiley

Identification of Risk Factors for the Development of Diabetic Retinopathy Among Palestinian Adults With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Cross-Sectional Study

ABSTRACT

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

1 Introduction

2 Materials and Methods

2.1 Study Participants and Data Collection

2.2 Diagnosis of Diabetic Retinopathy

2.3 Statistical Analysis

3 Results

3.1 Study Participants

3.2 Risk Factors for Diabetic Retinopathy

3.3 Identification of Independent Predictors for Diabetic Retinopathy

4 Discussion

Author Contributions

Acknowledgements

Ethics Statement

Consent

Conflicts of Interest

Open Research

Data Availability Statement

References

Citing Literature

References

Related

Information