No abstract

BackgroundThis case–control study was conducted to investigate the relationship between serum nesfatin-1 levels and nutritional status and blood parameters in patients diagnosed with metabolic syndrome.MethodsThirty patients (case) diagnosed with metabolic syndrome according to National Cholesterol Education Program-Adult Treatment Panel III criteria were included. Thirty healthy subjects (control) matched with patients with metabolic syndrome in terms of age, gender and body mass index were included. Three-day food consumption records were obtained. Anthropometric indices were measured and body composition was determined by bioelectrical impedance method. Biochemical parameters and serum nesfatin-1 levels were measured after 8 hours of fasting.ResultsSerum nesfatin-1 levels were 0.245±0.272 ng/mL in the case group and 0.528±0.987 ng/mL in the control group (p>0.05). There was a positive significant correlation between serum nesfatin-1 levels and body weight, waist and hip circumferences in the case group (p<0.05). Each unit increase in hip circumference measurement affects the levels of nesfatin by 0.014 times. In the control group, there was a positive significant correlation between body weight and serum nesfatin-1 levels (p<0.05). A significant correlation was detected between HbA1c and serum nesfatin-1 levels in the case group (p<0.05). A significant relationship was detected between dietary fibre intake and the serum nesfatin-1 levels in the case group (p<0.05).ConclusionsAnthropometric indices and blood parameters were correlated with serum nesfatin-1 levels in patients with metabolic syndrome. More clinical trials may be performed to establish the relationship between serum nesfatin-1 levels and nutritional status.

This study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of Pediatric Nutrition Screening Tool (PNST) and Pediatric Yorkhill Malnutrition Score (PYMS) in Turkish pediatric inpatients. A cross-sectional study was conducted on 996 inpatients aged 1 to 16 years. The prevalence of malnutrition was 31.8%. The PNST identified 28.7% (original cutoffs) and 62.6% (adjusted cutoffs) of patients as at risk, whereas PYMS categorized 44.3% as at high risk of malnutrition. The sensitivity of PNST with original cutoffs (52.1%) was lower than that of PYMS (85.2%) and PNST with adjusted cutoffs (83.3%), especially for acute malnutrition (67.6% vs 95.3% and 94.6%, respectively). Considering the importance of early identification and treatment of malnutrition, PYMS and PNST with adjusted cutoffs may be useful as a screening tool in this population.