In this issue of Diabetes Care , Selvin and Ali (1) have done a masterful job of exploring and explaining both the rise in the incidence of diabetes over 20 years and the fall in the incidence of diabetes over the last 5 years in the U.S. You may want to skip this and just read their article. The bottom line is that we as clinicians can confirm that they, as epidemiologists, have almost certainly gotten it right. Importantly, their analysis has critical implications for policy makers. There are a couple of critical definitions that need to be clarified. First, the term “incidence” refers to an annual rate of new diagnoses. That is the feature of diabetes explored in this article and here refers specifically to the number of people who report in a survey that a health care professional told them for the first time that they had diabetes in the last year. That number has dropped about 20% since 2009 (2). Incidence needs to be distinguished from “prevalence,” which refers to the number or proportion affected by a condition. For diabetes, that is a number that continues to rise and is only peripherally addressed (3). While clinicians tend to not focus on research methodology, in this case the methods are crucial to understand. The data from which incidence rates are derived is national survey data. These data …

中文翻译：

---

战争尚未胜利

在本期《糖尿病护理》中，Selvin和Ali（1）在探索和解释美国20年来的糖尿病发病率上升和最近5年中的糖尿病发病率下降方面做得很出色。可能想跳过此内容，只阅读他们的文章。最重要的是，作为临床医生，我们可以确认他们作为流行病学家几乎可以肯定地做到了。重要的是，他们的分析对决策者具有至关重要的意义。有几个关键的定义需要澄清。首先，术语“发病率”是指每年的新诊断率。这就是本文探讨的糖尿病的特征，在这里专门指的是在一项调查中报告的人数，该调查结果是卫生保健专业人员首次告诉他们他们去年患有糖尿病。自2009年以来，该数字下降了约20％（2）。发生率需要与“患病率”区分开，“患病率”是指疾病影响的数量或比例。对于糖尿病，这个数字还在持续上升，仅在周边地区得到解决（3）。尽管临床医生倾向于不专注于研究方法，但在这种情况下，这些方法对于理解至关重要。得出发病率的数据是国家调查数据。这些数据... ”是指受条件影响的数量或比例。对于糖尿病，这个数字还在持续上升，仅在周边地区得到解决（3）。尽管临床医生倾向于不专注于研究方法，但在这种情况下，这些方法对于理解至关重要。得出发病率的数据是国家调查数据。这些数据... ”是指受条件影响的数量或比例。对于糖尿病，这个数字还在持续上升，仅在周边地区得到解决（3）。尽管临床医生倾向于不专注于研究方法，但在这种情况下，这些方法对于理解至关重要。得出发病率的数据是国家调查数据。这些数据...