Evaluation of Dermatoglyphic Features of Type 2 Diabetic Patients as Compared to Non-Diabetics Attending Hospitals in Southern Ethiopia

Figures & data

Figure 1 Showing the finger ridge count for different patterns. Red line indicating finger ridge count of loop pattern, Maroon lines indicating finger ridge count of whorl pattern with two triradii there are two counts and the higher is used.

Figure 2 Showing the atd angles of the left palm Gedeo Zone governmental hospitals, Southern Ethiopia.

Table 1 Frequency Distribution of Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Type 2 DM Patients and Non-Diabetic Patients in Gedeo Zone Public Hospitals, Southern Ethiopia

		Type 2 DM Patients		Non Diabetics Patients
		No	%	No	%
Sex	Male	87	66.9	139	53.5
	Female	43	33.1	121	46.5
Age	18–35	20	1.5	590	22.7
	36–45	480	36.9	1050	40.4
	46–60	670	51.5	930	35.8
	Above 60 years	130	10	30	1.2

Figure 3 Frequency distribution of finger print pattern among type 2 diabetic and non-diabetic patients Gedeo Zone governmental hospitals, Southern Ethiopia.

Figure 4 Different finger print patterns of study participants Gedeo Zone governmental hospitals, Southern Ethiopia.

Table 2 Prevalence and Chi-Square Test of the Dermatoglyphics Pattern of Both Male and Female in Diabetic and Controls

Patterns	Male				P-value	Female				P-value
	Type 2DM		Non DM			Type 2DM		Non DM
	No	%	No	%		No	%	No	%
Whorl	236	27.1	316	22.7		153	35.6	355	29.3
Loop	566	65.1	1000	71.9	0.001	258	60.0	787	65.0	0.047
Arch	68	7.8	74	5.3		19	4.4	68	5.6

Table 3 Prevalence and Chi-Square Test of the Dermatoglyphics Pattern of Both Hands in Diabetic and Controls

Patterns	Right				P-value	Left				P-value
	Type 2DM		Non DM			Type 2DM		Non DM
	No	%	No	%		No	%	No	%
Whorl	193	29.7	344	26.5		196	30.2	327	25.2
Loop	411	63.2	899	69.2	0.073	413	63.5	888	68.3	0.062
Arch	46	7.1	57	4.4		41	6.3	85	6.5

Table 4 Prevalence and Chi-Square Test of Symmetryness with Dermatoglyphics Pattern Among Type 2 DM Patients and Non-Diabetic Patient

Patterns	Symmetrical Pattern				P-value	Asymmetrical Pattern				P-value
	Type 2DM		Non DM			Type 2 DM		Non DM
	No	%	No	%		No	%	No	%
Whorl	282	27.1	387	20.6		107	41.2	284	39.6
Loop	696	66.9	1437	76.4	0.001	128	49.2	350	48.7	0.001
Arch	62	6.0	58	3.1		25	9.6	84	11.7

Figure 5 Palm print of the right hand showing atd angle in Gedeo Zone governmental hospitals, Southern Ethiopia.

Table 5 Comparison of Atd Angle, TFRC and AFRC Among Type 2 Diabetes and Non-Diabetes Mellitus Patient

Parameters	Type 2 DM		Non-Diabetic Patients		p-value
	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
Right atd angle	42.4	5.27	39.6	6.04	0.001*
Left atd angle	41.4	4.9	40.0	7.1	0.026*
TFRC	160.37	79.2	150.4	62.4	0.212
AFRC	123.4	44.2	116.0	37.7	0.105

Note: *p value <0.05.

Abbreviations: AFRC, absolute finger ridge count; TFRC, total finger ridge count; SD, standard deviation.

Table 6 Bivariable and Multivariable Analysis of Multinomial Logistic Regression of Associated Factors with Digital Dermatoglyphics Pattern of Public Hospitals in Gedeo Zone

Outcomes	Explanatory Variables		COR [95% CI]	AOR [95% CI]	P-value
Whorl	Sex	Male	0.666 [0.497, 0.892]	0.658 [0.489, 0.884]	0.006*
		Female
	Symmetryness	Symmetry	1.554 [1.165, 2.072]	1.591[1.190, 2.128]	0.002*
		Asymmetry
	DM status	Non-diabetic	0.946[0.705, 1.270]	1.436 [1.068, 1.931]	0.017*
		Type 2 diabetic
Loop	Sex	Male	0.918 [0.695, 1.212]	0.922 [0.693, 1.225]	0.574
		Female
	Symmetryness	Symmetry	4.053[3.071, 5.350]	4.264 [3.221, 5.645]	0.000*
		Asymmetry
	DM status	Non-diabetic	0.753[0.569, 0.955]	1.125 [0.848, 1.491]	0.414
		Type 2 diabetic

Note: *Indicates p value <0.05.