Longitudinal evaluation of gastric emptying in type 2 diabetes
Abstract
Aims To evaluate the natural history of gastric emptying in type 2 diabetes. Methods 12 patients with type 2 diabetes (7 female; age 65.6 ± 1.2 years; duration of known diabetes 22.9 ± 1.5 years) were invited to return for repeat measurements of gastric emptying using the same dual-labelled solid and liquid meal, a mean of 14.0 ± 0.5 years after their initial study. Blood glucose levels, glycated haemoglobin, upper gastrointestinal symptoms and autonomic nerve function at baseline and follow up were also compared. Results Gastric emptying of solids was more rapid at follow up than at baseline (period effect P 0.999), and total upper gastrointestinal symptom score (P = 0.1) did not differ. Conclusions In patients with long-term type 2 diabetes, gastric emptying of solids and liquids does not usually become more delayed over time, and abnormally slow gastric emptying of solids may improve.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Changes in symptom intensity do not always parallel objective gastric emptying measurements.
“Moreover, changes in symptom intensity do not always parallel objective GE measurements, highlighting the complex interplay between pathophysiological derangements and central processing of visceral signals [14, 21–23].”
From Diabetic gastroparesis: pathophysiology and impact on insulin timing choices (2026) · cites this paper as [22]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 38 · Cited by 13
- Authors
- Watson, L. E., Phillips, L. K., Wu, T., Bound, M. J., Jones, K. L., Horowitz, M., & Rayner, C. K.
- Affiliations
- Royal Adelaide Hospital (AU)
- The University of Adelaide (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Rayner, Christopher K.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-08
- Volume
- 154
- Pages
- 27-34
- ISSN
- 0168-8227 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2949923671
- Cited by
- 13
- References
- 38
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 2.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Health and Medical Research Council
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Gastroenterology › Gastrointestinal motility and disorders
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
- Keywords
- gastric emptying, type 2 diabetes, natural history (disease), autonomic neuropathy, HbA1c, postprandial blood glucose, upper gastrointestinal symptoms, insulin therapy, long-term follow-up
- MeSH terms
- Aged, Blood Glucose, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Diabetic Neuropathies, Female, Gastric Emptying, Gastrointestinal Diseases, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Hyperglycemia, Hypoglycemia, Insulin, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Middle Aged, Prognosis, Diabetes Complications
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
