BackgroundDifferent iodine supplement measures emerge along with the economy development in China. The article objectives are to compare and explore the relationship between iodine sources and nutrition of pregnant women and adults.MethodsA total of 2,145 pregnant women and 1,660 adults were investigated by multi-stage random method. Questionnaire was used to collect basic information and the consumption of food, water, and iodine preparations. Household salt and individual urine and blood samples were collected, and thyroid function and morphology of pregnant women were measured.ResultsThe median urinary iodine concentration (MUIC) of pregnant women (164.49 μg/L) was lower than adults (187.30 μg/L, p < 0.05). Iodine supplement with IS (iodized salt) was the main measure for pregnant women and adults, and the difference was mainly on the consumption of iodine preparations between pregnant women (5.19%) and adults (0.85%). Moreover, adults’ dietary iodine intake from food (100.6 μg/day), IS (140.8 μg/day), and drinking water (6.0 μg/day) was higher than those of pregnant women (86.5, 107.2, and 3.5 μg/day, respectively). Compared with iodine supplement with IS, ISFP (IS + iodine-rich food + iodine preparations) could reduce the risk of iodine deficiency for pregnant women. The MUICs for pregnant women and adults of iodine supplements with IF (iodine-rich food) and ISF (IS + iodine-rich food) were lower. For pregnant women, thyroid nodule (11.90%) and peroxidase antibody (TPOAb) positive (9.32%) were high prevalent thyroid diseases, and habitation (urban/rural), gestation, annual income, and drinking water type would affect them.ConclusionPregnant women and adults had adequate iodine nutrition in four provinces. Their iodine supplement measures were different, the consumption of iodine preparations in pregnant women was higher, and their dietary iodine intake was lower than adults. ISFP was an effect measure for pregnant women to supplement iodine.
Background: Tumor is a common and frequently-occurring disease that seriously threatens human health, and is one of the main causes of death. Adriamycin (ADM) is the most commonly used and effective anti-tumor chemotherapeutics in clinical practice, but they can cause severe cardiotoxicity, which obviously limits their clinical application. Shengmai injection is a modern injection form of traditional Chinese medicine widely used for heart failure, myocardial infarction, cardiogenic shock, and cardiotoxicity patients in China. Therefore, we design this systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effectiveness and safety of Shengmai injection for treating ADM-related cardiotoxicity. Methods: We will methodically search PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Science Network, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, Chinese Journal Database, and China Biomedical Literature Database, in order to include randomized controlled trials which used Shengmai injection in treating ADM-related cardiotoxicity up to September 2020. The search strategies will use the following phrase: “Shengmai injection,” “Adriamycin,” “doxorubicin,” “cardiotoxicity,” “cardiomyopathy,” “randomized controlled trial.” The outcomes included cardiotoxicity rate, echocardiography, electrocardiogram, myocardial enzymes. Two researchers will independently select the study, extract the data and assess the quality by using Stata 14.0 and RevMan 5.3 software. The plan follows the preferred reporting items declared by the systematic review and meta-analysis plan, and the complete systematic review will follow the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement. Conclusion: The effectiveness and safety of Shengmai injection will be assessed in treating ADM-related cardiotoxicity which can give some evidence for clinical decision making. Trial registration number: INPLASY202090040
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.