scholarly journals Normal reference intervals of prognostic nutritional index in healthy adults: A large multi‐center observational study from Western China

Author(s):  
Guishu Yang ◽  
Dongsheng Wang ◽  
Linbo He ◽  
Guangjie Zhang ◽  
Jianhong Yu ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guishu Yang ◽  
Dongsheng Wang ◽  
Ruiling Zu ◽  
Linbo He ◽  
Guangjie Zhang ◽  
...  

Abstract Background It has been widely reported that the prognostic nutritional index (PNI) played a pivotal role in nutritional assessment of surgical patients and tumor prognosis. In order to improve the accuracy of evaluation in western China, we established reference intervals (RIs) of PNI in healthy controls. Methods A retrospective cohort study on healthy ethnic Han adults (18–79 years) was conducted to explore the influences of age, gender, study centers, and instruments on PNI and to establish RIs. The data came from a healthy routine examination center database and laboratory information system (LIS) of four centers in western China, and there were 200 persons selected randomly for verification of RIs. Results 5,839 healthy candidates were enrolled. PNI showed a marked gender dependence, and males had significantly higher PNI than females across all ages (P < 0.01). We found that PNI is significantly different between age groups (P < 0.01), the value of PNI tended to decrease with age increasing. There is also an obvious influence of centers and instruments on PNI (P < 0.01). Conclusions We established reference intervals of PNI in healthy Han Chinese population in Western China, and validated successfully. Further established RIs will lead to better standardizations of PNI for clinical applications.


2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (5) ◽  
pp. 2479-2484 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matteo Candeloro ◽  
Marcello Di Nisio ◽  
Martina Balducci ◽  
Stefano Genova ◽  
Emanuele Valeriani ◽  
...  

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. e045550
Author(s):  
Zhigang Zhang ◽  
Guoqiang Wang ◽  
Yuchen Wu ◽  
Jin Guo ◽  
Nannan Ding ◽  
...  

PurposeTo translate and adapt the Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment Tool (CPAx) into Chinese version (‘CPAx-Chi’), test the reliability and validity of CPAx-Chi, and verify the cut-off point for the diagnosis of intensive care unit-acquired weakness (ICU-AW).Study designCross-sectional observational study.MethodsForward and back translation, cross-cultural adaptation and pretesting of CPAx into CPAx-Chi were based on the Brislin model. Participants were recruited from the general ICU of five third-grade class-A hospitals in western China. Two hundred critically ill adult patients (median age: 53 years; 64% men) with duration of ICU stay ≥48 hours and Glasgow Coma Scale ≥11 were included in this study. Two researchers simultaneously and independently assessed eligible patients using the Medical Research Council Muscle Score (MRC-Score) and CPAx-Chi.ResultsThe content validity index of items was 0.889. The content validity index of scale was 0.955. Taking the MRC-Score scale as standard, the criterion validity of CPAx-Chi was r=0.758 (p<0.001) for researcher A, and r=0.65 (p<0.001) for researcher B. Cronbach’s α was 0.939. The inter-rater reliability was 0.902 (p<0.001). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves of CPAx-Chi for diagnosing ICU-AW based on MRC-Score ≤48 were 0.899 (95% CI 0.862 to 1.025) and 0.874 (95% CI 0.824 to 0.925) for researcher B. The best cut-off point for CPAx-Chi for the diagnosis of ICU-AW was 31.5. The sensitivity was 87% and specificity was 77% for researcher A, whereas it was 0.621, 31.5, 75% and 87% for researcher B, respectively. The consistency was high when taking CPAx-Chi ≤31 and MRC-Score ≤48 as the cut-off points for the diagnosis of ICU-AW. Cohen’s kappa=0.845 (p=0.02) in researcher A and 0.839 (p=0.04) for researcher B.ConclusionsCPAx-Chi demonstrated content validity, criterion-related validity and reliability. CPAx-Chi showed the best accuracy in assessment of patients at risk of ICU-AW with good sensitivity and specificity at a recommended cut-off of 31.


Nutrition ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 111123
Author(s):  
Xiang Hu ◽  
Huihui Deng ◽  
Yuxia Wang ◽  
Lingqiao Chen ◽  
Xuemei Gu ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hiroyuki Hisada ◽  
Yu Takahashi ◽  
Manabu Kubota ◽  
Haruhisa Shimura ◽  
Ei Itobayashi ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common cancers in the world. The number of elderly patients with CRC increases due to aging of the population. There are few studies that examined chemotherapy and prognostic factors in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients aged ≥ 80 years. We assessed the efficacy of chemotherapy and prognostic factors among patients with mCRC aged ≥ 80 years. Methods We retrospectively analyzed clinical and laboratory findings of 987 patients newly diagnosed with CRC at Asahi General Hospital (Chiba, Japan) between January 2012 and December 2016. The Kaplan–Meier method was used for the overall survival (OS) and the log-rank test was used to identify difference between patients. A multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression analysis was performed to determine the hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of prognostic factors among super-elderly patients. Results In total, 260 patients were diagnosed with mCRC (super-elderly group: n = 43, aged ≥ 80 years and younger group, n = 217, aged < 80 years). The performance status and nutritional status were worse in the super-elderly group than in the younger group. The OS of super-elderly patients who received chemotherapy was worse than that of younger patients (18.5 vs. 28.8 months; P = 0.052), although the difference was not significant. The OS of patients who received chemotherapy tended to be longer than that of those who did not; however, there were no significant differences in OS in the super-elderly group (18.5 vs. 8.4 months P = 0.33). Multivariate analysis revealed that carcinoembryonic antigen levels ≥ 5 ng/mL (hazard ratio: 2.27; 95% CI 1.09–4.74; P = 0.03) and prognostic nutritional index ≤ 35 (hazard ratio: 8.57; 95% CI 2.63–27.9; P = 0.0003) were independently associated with poor OS in the super-elderly group. Conclusions Patients with mCRC aged ≥ 80 years had lower OS than younger patients even though they received chemotherapy. Carcinoembryonic antigen and prognostic nutritional index were independent prognostic factors in super-elderly patients with mCRC, but chemotherapy was not. Trial registration: retrospectively registered.


Animals ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 347
Author(s):  
Emma Strous ◽  
Arne Vanhoudt ◽  
Anja Smolenaars ◽  
Gerdien van Schaik ◽  
Matthijs Schouten ◽  
...  

Platelet and leukocyte count reference intervals (RIs) for cattle differ by age and while adult RIs are known, RIs for calves are studied less. The aims of this observational study are to evaluate variation of platelet counts of Holstein Friesian calves over the first 14 days of life and to propose RIs for platelet and leukocyte counts of Holstein Friesian calves aged 0–60 days. In a longitudinal study, 19 calves were blood sampled 17 times, in the first 14 days of their lives. Blood was collected in a citrate blood tube and platelet counts were determined. We assessed the course of platelet counts. In a field study, 457 healthy calves were blood sampled once. Blood was collected in an EDTA blood tube and platelet and leukocyte counts were determined. The RIs were calculated by the 2.5 and 97.5 percentiles. Platelet counts started to increase 24 h after birth (mean platelet count 381 × 109/L ± 138 × 109/L) and stabilized after five days (mean platelet count 642 × 109/L ± 265 × 109/L). In calves up to six days of age, platelet counts were lower than in calves older than five days. In conclusion, the RIs of platelet and leukocyte counts in calves were wider in range than the RIs for adult cattle, therefore, calf specific RIs for platelet and leukocyte counts should be used. From 6 until 60 days of age, we propose an RI for platelet counts of 287–1372 × 109/L and for the first 60 days of life an RI for leukocyte counts of 4.0–18.9 × 109/L.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document