Sarcopenia and mortality in different clinical conditions: A meta-analysis

Objectives: Sarcopenia is recognized to be a health problem which is as serious as obesity, but its relevance to mortality is unclear. We conducted a meta-analysis of cohort studies on lean mass and mortality in populations with different health conditions. / Methods: In this study, a systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane Library and Embase was performed for cohort studies published before Dec 20, 2017 which examined the relationship between lean mass and mortality. We included studies reporting lean mass measurement by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, bioimpedance analysis or computed tomography, as continuous (per standard deviation [SD] decrease) or binary variables (using sarcopenia cutoffs). We excluded studies which used muscle mass surrogates, anthropometric measurement of muscle, rate of change in muscle mass, and sarcopenia defined by composite criteria. The primary study outcome was all-cause mortality. Pooled hazard ratio estimates were calculated using a random effects model. / Results: A total of 9602 articles were identified from the systematic search, and 188 studies with 98 468 participants from 34 countries were included in the meta-analysis. Of the 68 studies included in the present meta-analysis, the pooled HR was 1.36 and 1.74 for every SD decrease in lean mass and in people with low lean mass (cutoffs), respectively. Significant associations were also observed in elderly and all disease subgroups, irrespective of the measurement modalities. / Conclusions: Lower lean mass is robustly associated with increased mortality, regardless of health conditions and lean mass measurement modalities. This meta-analysis highlighted low lean mass as a key public health issue

Comparative accuracies of automated and manual office blood pressure measurements in a Chinese population

We aimed to assess the difference in the accuracy of readings from automated office blood pressure machines with each other or with manual office blood pressure measurements in Chinese individuals. We collected awake 48-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, two automated office blood pressure device (BpTRU and WatchBP) readings, and manual office blood pressure measurements in Chinese patients (n = 135) with hypertension in a randomized sequence. Differences were compared using paired t-tests and Bland–Altman plots. The sensitivity and specificity of the techniques for detecting elevated blood pressure were calculated using awake ambulatory blood pressure monitoring as the reference standard. The WatchBP device’s and awake ambulatory blood pressure readings were similar. The BpTRU device provided significantly lower mean systolic (P < 0.001) and diastolic (P < 0.001) blood pressure readings, while manual office BP provided significantly higher mean systolic (P = 0.008) and diastolic (P < 0.001) blood pressure readings than the awake automated office blood pressure readings. Automated and manual office blood pressure measurements showed similar sensitivity, specificity, and 95% limits of agreement as based on Bland–Altman plots. The mean systolic (P < 0.001) and diastolic (P < 0.02) blood pressure readings of WatchBP and BpTRU differed, and their diagnostic performances were not superior than those of manual office blood pressure measurements in Chinese patients. Therefore, automated office blood pressure measurements cannot be routinely recommended for Chinese individuals in clinical practice. More studies are needed to confirm these results

Different definitions of sarcopenia and mortality in cancer : a meta-analysis

202207 bcwwVersion of RecordSelf-fundedPublishe

Loneliness, depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder among Chinese adults during COVID-19 : a cross-sectional online survey

202303 bcwwVersion of RecordOthersUniversity of Maryland School of Public Health, SPHPublishe

A reliability and validity study for Scolioscan : a radiation-free scoliosis assessment system using 3D ultrasound imaging

2015-2016 > Academic research: refereed > Publication in refereed journalVersion of RecordPublishe