Key Findings
All retrieved records were identified, and after being manually scrutinized, they
were deemed relevant and included in the review process. [Table 1] lists the various themes that emerged from the literature review. The results are
presented following the same thematic flow.
Table 1
Emerging themes from the review of the literature on “diabetes and Ramadan fasting”
published in 2024
Epidemiological observation of Ramadan fasting in people with diabetes
|
Experience and validation studies of the IDF-DAR risk stratification scale/tool in
the real world
|
New and revisited data on old and new pharmacological diabetic therapies during Ramadan
fasting: New data, subanalyses, and systematic reviews and meta-analyses
|
Role of technology in treatment and monitoring of diabetes during Ramadan fasting
|
Ramadan fasting in high-risk groups and special populations
|
Professional perspectives
|
Patients perspectives
|
Abbreviation: IDF-DAR, International Diabetes Federation-Diabetes and Ramadan Alliance.
Epidemiology
Fasting during Ramadan is common among individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D), though
it carries potential risks. Hassanein et al[11]
[12] analyzed 12,529 T2D patients fasting during Ramadan (2020 and 2022). They found
that 85.1% fasted for at least 1 day, with an average fasting duration of 27.6 days,
15.5% experienced hypoglycemia, 11.7% requiring emergency care, 14.9% experienced
hyperglycemia, with 6.1% requiring emergency care, and patients with longer diabetes
duration and higher glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) (> 9%) faced greater risks.
Regional differences in fasting-related complications were notable. For instance,
North Africa had the highest hypoglycemia rates (25.2%), Gulf nations reported the
highest hyperglycemia rates (30.2%), and South Asia had the lowest rates of hypoglycemia
(8.4%) and hyperglycemia (7.0%).
Effectiveness of Pre-Ramadan Education and Risk Assessment
Education before Ramadan is often recommended to mitigate risks, but its effectiveness
remains debated. Sokwalla[13] conducted a case–control study in Kenya and found that patients who received pre-Ramadan
diabetes education were significantly more likely to self-monitor blood glucose (98.3%
vs. 75.3%). However, fasting outcomes—including hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia rates—did
not differ considerably between educated and noneducated groups.
Similarly, Qasim et al[14] examined 304 T2D patients in Iraq and found that (1) 13.8% had at least one hypoglycemic
episode and (2) no significant correlation was found between hypoglycemia and diabetes
duration or oral hypoglycemic agents. These findings suggest that while education
promotes self-monitoring, its direct impact on fasting outcomes remains unclear.
Validation of the International Diabetes Federation-Diabetes and Ramadan Alliance
Risk Stratification Tool
The International Diabetes Federation-Diabetes and Ramadan Alliance (IDF-DAR) group
risk calculator, which categorizes diabetes patients for fasting advisability, continues
to gain interest. In 2024, seven studies validated its risk stratification. Shamsi
et al[15] assessed its accuracy in Bahrain, facilitating health care professionals' (HCPs)
decisions on fasting exemptions. Their prospective study included 757 randomly selected
patients, evaluating fasting risks pre- and post-Ramadan. Among 611 analyzed patients
(mean age 59.8 years, 52.8% female, 95.3% with T2D), risk classification was 27.8%
low, 38.1% moderate, and 34% high. Fasting completion correlated with risk scores,
with hypoglycemia being the primary reason for breaking fast. Shaltout et al[16] employed a modified Delphi method to refine risk stratification for fasting people
with diabetes mellitus. Their expert panel classified patients into four risk levels,
considering diabetes type, complications, fasting duration, and socioeconomic factors.
The study underscored the necessity of risk assessment to optimize patient outcomes.
Malik et al[17] conducted a 3-month study in Pakistan, categorizing 460 diabetes patients using
the IDF-DAR 2021 tool. Of the 144 high-risk patients who fasted, 57.9% experienced
hypoglycemia. Significant associations emerged between fasting outcomes and diabetes
type, control, and duration. Alfadhli et al[18] validated the IDF-DAR tool in Saudi Arabia with 466 patients (79.4% T2D, 20.6% T1D).
Risk distribution was 56.9% high, 24.7% moderate, and 18.4% low. High-risk patients
faced more hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia, yet 70.4% of moderate- and 53.2% of high-risk
individuals completed fasting. Afandi et al[19] analyzed data from 12,059 patients in the DaR Global Study (2020–2022), identifying
regional fasting disparities and significant risk factors such as diabetes duration,
age, HbA1c > 9%, insulin use, and vascular complications. Khorasani et al[20] stratified 317 Iranian diabetic patients based on IDF-DAR guidelines, categorizing
36.3% as low, 40% as moderate, and 23.7% as high risk. Their study suggested most
patients could fast but recommended further validation through longitudinal studies.
Alguwaihes et al[21] examined IDF-DAR predictability in 963 Saudi people with type 1 diabetes (PwT1D),
finding 66% high risk, 34% moderate, and none low risk. High-risk patients had more
fasting breaks and emergency room (ER) visits, while pre-Ramadan education reduced
ER visits by 47%. Al-Sofiani et al[22] compared fasting experiences in 294 PwT1D using different insulin delivery methods.
Automated insulin delivery (AID) users had the highest fasting completion and best
glycemic control, with significantly better time-in-range (TIR) and fewer glycemic
fluctuations than other groups. Their study emphasized the efficacy of AID system
in managing diabetes during RF.
Diabetes Medications
Several studies assessed the safety and efficacy of various classes of diabetes medications
during RF including original studies and meta-analyses ([Table 2]).[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
Table 2
Summary of the original studies on the efficacy and safety of different pharmacological
agents during Ramadan in 2024
Author (region) (Ref)
|
Drugs (patients)
|
Acronym, setting, and/or design
|
Conclusions
|
Uddin et al, Bangladesh[23]
|
Gliclazide MR 60 mg (N = 98 T2D)
|
DIA-RAMADAN; Subanalysis in the Bangladeshi cohort
|
Bangladeshi patients with T2D treated with Gliclazide MR 60 mg can fast safely with
a very low risk of hypoglycemia while maintaining glycemic control and body weight
|
Baloch et al[24]
|
Dapagliflozin (DAPA)
|
Safety and efficacy of dapagliflozin in patients with T2D during RF: an experience
from tertiary care hospital
|
Adding DAPA significantly reduced HbA1c and blood pressure without severe hypoglycemia,
diabetic ketoacidosis, or urinary tract infections
|
Hassanein et al (Arabian Gulf)[28]
|
iGlarLixi and SGLT-2i (N = 174 T2D)
|
SoliRam: Subset for safety and effectiveness of concomitant use in adults with T2D
|
Concomitant iGlarLixi and SGLT-2i use with or without other OADs is safe in T2D adults
during the Ramadan fast. There is a low risk of hypoglycemia and improvements in glycemic
outcomes
|
Hassanein et al (Arabian Gulf)[29]
|
iGlarLixi (N = 234 T2D)
|
SoliRam subgroup analysis
|
iGlarLixi is an effective and well-tolerated treatment in T2D during Ramadan, and
is associated with low hypoglycemia risk
|
Hassanein et al (Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey)[30]
|
Gla-300 (N = 140 T2D)
|
Prospective, observational, noncomparative, multicenter study during Ramadan
|
Insulin Gla-300 maintained the glycemic control of T2D patients who fast during Ramadan
without increased risk of hypoglycemia
|
Baharum et al (Malaysia)[31]
|
Three types of basal insulin (Glargine U-100, Levemir, and Insulatard) (N = 46 T2D and CKD)
|
A single-centered, prospective observational study for safety and efficacy
|
All three insulins demonstrated similar levels of safety and efficacy among those
with T2D and DKD observing RF
|
Abbreviations: CKD, chronic kidney disease; DKD, diabetic kidney disease; OAD, oral
antidiabetic drug; RF, Ramadan fasting; SGLT2i, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors;
T1D, type 1 diabetes; T2D, type 2 diabetes.
Oral Agents
Uddin et al[23] analyzed Bangladeshi patients from the DIA-RAMADAN study on Gliclazide MR 60 mg.
Among 98 patients, most were at moderate/low risk for fasting. Switching the dose
to evening resulted in no severe hypoglycemia, a mean HbA1c reduction of –0.1%, and
stable fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and body weight. Gliclazide MR 60 mg was deemed
safe for fasting patients.
Baloch et al[24] studied dapagliflozin (DAPA), a sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor (SGLT2i),
in diabetic patients taking metformin and DPP-4 inhibitors. Adding DAPA significantly
reduced HbA1c and blood pressure without severe hypoglycemia, diabetic ketoacidosis
(DKA), or urinary tract infections. Abdelgadir et al[25] analyzed the DAR global survey on SGLT2i safety in fasting T2D patients across the
Middle East and North Africa. Among 5,865 patients, 2,379 used SGLT2i. Hypoglycemia
was lower in SGLT2i users (8%) versus those on insulin or sulfonylureas (SUs). ER
visits increased 3.5-fold when insulin and SUs were added to SGLT2i. Waheed et al[26] reviewed studies on SGLT2i use in fasting T2D patients. Across 359 participants,
SGLT2i use had no significant impact on kidney function. Nakhleh et al[27] evaluated SGLT2i safety during RF, finding a symptomatic hypoglycemia rate of 12.5%,
which increased when combined with insulin or SUs. Patients were advised to adjust
insulin doses and ensure adequate hydration. Abdelgadir et al[25] reviewed studies on SGLT2i safety during RF, finding no significant links to DKA,
hospitalization, or thrombosis. A few studies reported hypovolemia and estimated glomerular
filtration rate (eGFR) reduction, though these findings lacked clinical significance.
Injectables and Combinations
Hassanein et al[28]
[29] assessed iGlarLixi and SGLT-2i therapy in T2D patients. Hypoglycemia incidence was
low in both users and nonusers of SGLT-2i. Improvements in HbA1c and FPG, with slight
weight reduction, were observed. No serious adverse events occurred, demonstrating
the safety of this regimen during RF. Another study by Hassanein et al[30] evaluated Gla-300 insulin in T2D patients across four countries. Insulin doses remained
stable, and glycemic control was maintained without increased hypoglycemia risk. Regular
self-monitoring was advised. Baharum et al[31] compared basal insulins in T2D patients with mild to moderate chronic kidney disease
(CKD) during RF. A prospective study of 46 patients showed similar safety and efficacy
among insulin Glargine U-100, Levemir, and Insulatard users. Pathan et al[32] investigated once-weekly semaglutide in T2D patients. Semaglutide improved glycemic
control, weight loss, and dyslipidemia with minimal hypoglycemic episodes.
In summary, the studies conducted in 2024 confirm the safety of various diabetes medications
during RF, including insulin, SUs, SGLT2i's, and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor
agonists (GLP-1 RAs). While self-adjustment of drugs is common, it does not significantly
impact glycemic outcomes. Gliclazide MR, dapagliflozin, and semaglutide maintain glycemic
control with minimal hypoglycemia. SGLT2i, when used without insulin or SUs, reduces
hypoglycemia risk. Adherence to oral semaglutide dosing and glucose monitoring is
crucial for optimal outcomes. Further research is needed to refine medication strategies
for fasting T2D patients.
Diabetes Technology
Several studies considered the role of advanced technology in diabetes management
during Ramadan.[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39] Key studies exploring diabetes management during Ramadan, focusing on education,
AID, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), and hybrid closed-loop (HCL) systems are
summarized in [Table 3]. Mackenzie et al[33] developed and evaluated two Ramadan-focused diabetes education massive open online
courses (MOOCs) for Ramadan 2023: one for HCPs in English and another for people with
diabetes in English, Arabic, and Malay. A user-centered iterative design was used,
incorporating feedback from a 2022 pilot MOOC. Evaluation involved pre- and postcourse
surveys, demonstrating MOOCs' potential for scalable, culturally tailored diabetes
education. Elbarbary et al[34] conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) on the MiniMed 780G AID system (MM780G)
for PwT1D during RF. Six studies were reviewed, leading to consensus recommendations
on pre-Ramadan counseling, MM780G settings, and safety measures. The SLR found that
MM780G maintains glycemic control, reduces hypoglycemia, and enables PwT1D to fast
for more days. However, post-Iftar hyperglycemia remains a challenge. Al Hayek and
Al Dawish[35] examined glycemic risk index (GRI) changes in 186 PwT1D using intermittent scanning
CGM before, during, and after Ramadan. GRI improved by 54.6%, hypoglycemic components
decreased by 60%, and hyperglycemia dropped by 40.5% during fasting, though these
benefits reversed post-Ramadan. Adolescents and insulin pump users had better outcomes.
Findings highlight the potential of GRI for improving diabetes management. Haraj et
al[36] compared glycemic fluctuations in fasting and nonfasting T2D patients during Ramadan.
A prospective study of 39 patients used CGM. Fasting patients had an HbA1c of 7.36%
and averaged 4.03 daily hyperglycemia episodes, mainly at Suhoor and Iftar. Nonfasting
patients had more hyperglycemia but showed significant HbA1c improvement post-Ramadan.
Education, risk stratification, and CGM monitoring are crucial for managing T2D during
Ramadan. Al Hayek et al[37] assessed glucose changes in 93 T2D patients on nonintensive insulin using intermittently
scanned CGM before, during, and after Ramadan. HbA1c, average glucose, and glucose
variability significantly improved during fasting, but time spent below 54 mg/dL slightly
increased. Self-care behaviors were inadequate in 32.3% of participants. Findings
suggest RF benefits glucose control in T2D patients not on intensive insulin therapy.
Al-Sofiani et al[38] evaluated the MiniMed 780G system in real-world users during Ramadan. Data from
449 users showed stable glycemic control with no increased daytime hypoglycemia risk.
The system adapted quickly to fasting-related lifestyle changes, maintaining safety
and effectiveness. Outenah et al[39] studied HCL therapy in 20 PwT1D during Ramadan. No significant differences were
found in TIR, time below 70 mg/dL, or HCL usage compared with pre-Ramadan. No acute
metabolic events occurred, suggesting HCL therapy maintains glycemic control during
fasting.
Table 3
Summary of studies on the use of technology in managing diabetes during Ramadan
Authors (Ref)
|
Aims
|
Technology
|
Conclusions
|
Mackenzie et al
(International)[33]
|
Two parallel massive open online courses (MOOCs) in RFDE for HCPs and PWD
|
A user-centered iterative platform utilized by HCPs, PWDs, their family, friends from
50 countries (N = 1,531)
|
MOOCs could deliver culturally tailored, high-quality, scalable, multilingual RFDE
to HCPs and PWD
|
Elbarbary et al
(International)[34]
|
Systematic review. Pre-Ramadan guidance on the MM780G and the IDF-DAR guidelines
|
MiniMed 780G AID system (MM780G) in PwT1D during RF
|
AID also helps PwT1D fast for more days of Ramadan than other less advanced treatment
modalities
|
Al Hayek and Al Dawish
(Saudi Arabia)[35]
|
The effects of RF on glycemic control in T1D, focusing on GRI for hypo- and hyperglycemia
|
Intermittent scanning CGM
|
RF significantly improved GRI and its components in individuals with T1D
|
Haraj et al
(Morocco)[36]
|
To evaluate and compare glycemic fluctuations in fasting and nonfasting T2D patients
during RF
|
iPro®2 CGMS (Medtronic). 39 T2D
|
The high prevalence of hyperglycemia, especially in nonfasting patients, underlines
the need for tailored treatment adjustments to achieve optimal glycemic control
|
Al Hayek et al
(Saudi Arabia)[37]
|
To assess glucometric changes in T2D patients before, during, and after RF
|
isCGMs in 93 T2DM patients
|
RF could improve glycemia in T2DM patients who are not on intensive insulin and have
a relatively low incidence of hypoglycemia
|
Al-Sofiani et al
(Arabian Gulf)[38]
|
The effectiveness and safety of the MiniMed 780G AID system in real world during RF
|
CareLink, MiniMed 780G system in 449 T1DM
|
The system is effective, safe, and fast in adapting to the substantial changes that
occur in the lifestyle during RF
|
Outenah et al
(France)[39]
|
How RF could challenge metabolic control in T1DM
|
CGM under hybrid closed-loop (HCL) therapy in 20 T1DM patients
|
There was no difference in TIR and other parameters, including time under 70 mg/dL.
No cute metabolic events were observed
|
Abbreviations: AID, automated insulin delivery; CGM, continuous glucose monitoring;
GRI, glycemia risk index; HCL, hybrid closed-loop; HCP, health care professional;
IDF-DAR, International Diabetes Federation-Diabetes and Ramadan Alliance; isCGM, intermittent
scanning CGM; PWD, people with diabetes; PwT1D, people with type 1 diabetes; RF: Ramadan
fasting; RFDE, Ramadan-focused diabetes education; T1D, type 1 diabetes; T2D, type
2 diabetes; TIR, time-in-range.
In summary, these studies emphasized the role of diabetes management during Ramadan,
focusing on education, AID, CGM, and HCL systems. MOOCs provide scalable, multilingual
diabetes education. The MiniMed 780G maintains glycemic control and enhances fasting
safety. Glycemic control improves during fasting but often reverts post-Ramadan. CGM
highlights hyperglycemia risks, especially in nonfasting T2D patients. HCL therapy
remains effective during fasting, supporting its use in PwT1D. Personalized strategies
and education remain critical for optimal diabetes management during Ramadan.
Challenges in Special Populations[40]
Several studies addressed the special challenges of fasting during Ramadan in high-risk
groups and special populations under different clinical and sociodemographic settings.
These will be discussed briefly below. Farooq et al[40] assessed adherence to IDF-DAR guidelines in high-risk diabetic patients. Of 130
participants, 40% fasted against medical advice, with hypoglycemia significantly higher
in the fasting group (58.3% vs. 29.3%, p = 0.021). The study underscores the need for improved patient education.
Khan et al[41] examined the effects of RF on ER visits among 200 diabetic patients. The frequency
of diabetic emergencies decreased from 59.6% before Ramadan to 23.1% during and 17.3%
post-Ramadan, indicating RF does not increase risks when properly managed. For instance,
Rizwanullah et al[42] documented a euglycemic DKA (eDKA) case in a 50-year-old woman triggered by fasting
and a urinary tract infection. Despite normal blood sugar, metabolic acidosis and
hyperkalemia required hemodialysis, highlighting the need for vigilant eDKA diagnosis
even with normal glucose levels. Also, Baynouna Alketbi et al[43] assessed frailty in 204 elderly Abu Dhabi residents during Ramadan using the FRAIL
(Fatigue, Resistance, Ambulation, Illnesses, and Loss of weight) tool. They found
that 53.4% were frail or pre-frail, with adverse events more common among frail patients
(one-third) versus pre-frail (11.2%) and robust (6.3%). The study emphasized discrepancies
between physicians' assessments and structured frailty scores.
Haroon et al[44] conducted a prospective study in Karachi to evaluate fasting safety in diabetic
and nondiabetic patients with stable CKD during Ramadan. Monitoring 68 patients before,
during, and after Ramadan, they observed no renal function decline and noted significant
improvements in blood pressure, serum creatinine, and uric acid (p < 0.0001). Furthermore, Ashkbari et al[45] examined RF's impact on CKD patients' lipid profiles, uric acid, and HbA1c. Four
studies found no significant changes in cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein, triglycerides,
uric acid, or HbA1c post-Ramadan (p > 0.05), suggesting a neutral effect.
Jemai et al[46] studied 140 high-risk diabetic patients fasting during Ramadan. Despite observing
hypoglycemia (12.1%) and hyperglycemia (11.4%), overall glycemic control improved
with reductions in fasting blood glucose and HbA1c (p < 0.05). Creatinine clearance remained stable, indicating RF can be tolerated with
proper supervision. Also, Elshabrawy et al[47] classified 90 diabetic patients into high-, moderate-, and low-risk fasting groups.
Hypoglycemia was significantly more frequent in high-risk patients (p < 0.05), while DKA incidence was numerically but not statistically higher (p > 0.05). Only high-risk patients had significantly declined eGFR, underscoring increased
risks for PwT1D.
Hamdi et al[48] surveyed 56 PwT1D in Malaysia, finding that despite 80% being high risk, most intended
to fast. Only 40% accurately assessed their risk, stressing the need for better fasting
education. Also, Alguwaihes et al[49] conducted a 3-year study on young adult PwT1D in Saudi Arabia. CGM revealed significant
hyperglycemic spikes after Iftar and Suhoor, persisting post-Ramadan, highlighting
the need for insulin adjustments and improved fasting guidelines.
Aljahdali et al[50] explored RF's impact on cardiometabolic health in 68 Saudi adults with diabetes.
Fasting led to weight loss, reduced waist and hip circumference, increased high-density
lipoprotein cholesterol, and decreased inflammatory markers, suggesting potential
benefits for diabetic patients. Hifdi et al[51] analyzed 48 patients with cardiovascular, metabolic, and renal complications, finding
that 70% occurred during Ramadan. Fasting was linked to increased cardiovascular (49%
vs. 22%) and metabolic (43% vs. 22%) complications, highlighting the importance of
risk stratification and medical supervision.
Professional Perspectives
Several studies highlighted the role of education and HCPs in managing diabetes during
Ramadan.[52]
[53]
[54]
[55]
[56]
[57]
[58]
[59] These will be briefly summarized below:
Educational interventions: Firdausa et al[52] found structured education improved diabetes knowledge (30.65–92.47%) and self-care
(83.87–94.08%), with significant gains in eating behavior (p = 0.046), medication adherence (p = 0.001), and glucose monitoring (p = 0.001).
Physician awareness: Mohamed et al[53] reported that 55.8% of 52 non-Muslim physicians in Saudi Arabia treated diabetic
patients during Ramadan but lacked formal guidance, highlighting a need for targeted
training.
Artificial intelligence (AI) in fasting safety: Ahmed and Akl[54] emphasized the use of AI tools like CGM and predictive models (e.g., PROFAST) to
optimize diabetes management.
Research trends: Baharuddin and Wijaya[55] reviewed 206 studies, noting fasting's metabolic benefits and the underrepresentation
of Indonesia and Brunei in research.
Pharmacists' role: Ulutas Deniz et al[56] reported that Turkish pharmacists provide medication and diet advice but face high
workloads and misconceptions about their expertise, suggesting expanded training.
Good health and well-being: AbuShihab et al[57] linked RF research to Sustainable Development Goal 3 (Good Health and Well-Being),
focusing on noncommunicable disease reduction but gaps in broader health outcomes.
Reflection on RF.
Knowledge of HCPs: Hillier et al[58] reported Western HCPs lacked awareness of fasting risks, recommending multilingual
resources and cultural competency training.
Role of general practitioners (GPs): Ali[59] highlighted GPs' roles in pre-Ramadan education, medication adjustments, and public
awareness campaigns.
Patients' Perspectives
Several studies reveal patient challenges and motivations for fasting despite medical
risks.[60]
[61]
[62]
[63]
[64]
[65]
[66]
[67]
[68]
Education & risk management: Oueslati et al[60] found pre-Ramadan education improved glucose monitoring (35.6–75%, p < 0.001) but increased hyperglycemia (3–14.9%, p < 0.001), emphasizing better risk stratification.
Perceptions and social factors: Yildirim Keskin et al[61] found that T2D patients valued fasting's spiritual significance but needed tailored
education and support.
Adolescent fasting risks: Rahme et al[62] found that 34% of 44 adolescents with uncontrolled T1D fasted despite health risks
due to religious and social motivations, calling for revised guidelines.
Psychosocial impact: Missaoui et al[63] linked lower self-esteem to high-risk fasting patients, highlighting the need for
emotional support.
Fasting against medical advice: Aljanahi and Afandi[64] reported a 56-year-old T2D patient fasting without medical guidance, stressing the
need for personalized management.
Gestational diabetes in Ramadan: Al-Marzouqi et al[65] found fasting among 20 pregnant women was influenced by spiritual and social factors
but complicated by health risks and inconsistent medical advice.
Health care–religion conflicts: Makakena[66] found many diabetic patients self-managed fasting without medical input, stressing
clearer national guidelines and doctor–religious leader collaboration.
Self-care and knowledge: Boujelben et al[67] found that 56% of 70 Tunisian diabetics recognized hypoglycemia risks, but only
27% understood high-risk scenarios, highlighting the need for clearer medical guidance.
Fasting safety factors: Alharbi et al[68] linked diabetes type, age, and medication use to fasting risks, emphasizing education
and preventive strategies.
Limitations and Gaps
The article is limited by its concise thematic overview of the global research conducted
during a limited duration of a single year. The subjects are chosen by their publication
year. However, it adds to the previously published articles on the same subject.[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10] Restricted by the volume and readability, only articles focused on diabetes and
Ramadan were included. The impact of RF on wider aspects of health care is being published
elsewhere. Due to the inhomogeneity of the studies, narrative rather than systematic
reviews was deemed more appropriate. A single year's study could not identify gaps
in the research due to selection bias. This calls for a more subject-based review
of the literature to draw a wider picture of knowledge, yet this article is meant
to provide a quick update of the latest research and key opinions described in the
past year.[69]