1.Characteristics of lipid metabolism in hypertensive patients with obstructive sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome
Wanyong MA ; Xiaoguang YAO ; Yunwei BI ; Jing HOHG ; Feiya ZU ; Nanfang LI
Journal of Chinese Physician 2013;15(10):1306-1310
Objective To explore the lipid metabolism in patients with hypertension and obstructive sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome.Methods A total of 896 patients (655 cases of male; 241 cases of female) was recruited who were hospitalized in our department,and were classified into four groups based on the finding of polysomnography (PSG):hypertensive without obstructive sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome (OSAS) (n =243),hypertensive with mild OSAS (n =245),hypertensive with moderate OSAS (n =195),and hypertensive with severe OSAS (n =213).Multiple indices including apnea-hypopnea index (AHI),lowest arterial oxygen saturation(lowest SaO2),body mass index (BMI),blood pressure,total cholesterol (TC),high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C),low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDLC),triglycerides (TG),fasting blood glucose(FBG),uric acid (UA),and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein(hs-CRP) were assessed,and the relevant risk factors of lipid metabolism were analyzed.Results (1)Male patients had more opportunities to suffer OSAS than female (P <0.01).Compared with the group without hypertensive,patients in severe OSAS group had higher levels of AGE (48.09 ± 9.48,BMI (29.46 ±3.83),AHI[45.90(37.55,63.65)],MSpO2 (89.08 ±4.93),LSpO2 (67.36 ± 12.60),TC (4.68 ±1.00),TG[2.03(1.54,2.88)],UA (371.85 ±99.29),and hs-CRP[1.43(0.82,3.056)] (P <0.05),and had lower levels of HDL-C (1.09 ± 0.28).(2) Two and more than two lipids abnormal metabolic indices increased prevalence with the increase of the severity of OSAS.(3)The prevalence of high TG,high TC in AHI ≥ 15/h was significantly higher than AHI < 15 group.(4) After adjustment for BMI,gender,age and other common risk factors,it confirmed that AHI was still related to lipid metabolism.AHI was an independent risk factor for abnormal lipid metabolism.Conclusions AHI was an independent risk factor for abnormal lipid metabolism.With increasing severity of OSAS,the levels TC,TG,and the category of abnormal lipid metabolism were also increased.
2.Prognostic analysis and predictive model construction of textbook outcome after gallbladder carcinoma surgery
Mingtai HU ; Qinghe TANG ; Wencong MA ; Wanyong CHEN ; Jinghan WANG ; Zhihua XIE ; Yong YU ; Xiaoqing JIANG
Chinese Journal of Hepatobiliary Surgery 2022;28(5):337-341
Objective:To analyze independent influencing factors of surgical textbook outcome (TO) in patients with gallbladder carcinoma, and to establish a nomogram for predicting TO and evaluated the predictive ability.Methods:Patients with gallbladder carcinoma who underwent surgery in Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery at Dongfang Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Tongji University and Department of Biliary Tract Surgery Ⅰ, Third Affiliated Hospital of Naval Medical University (Shanghai Eastern Hepatobiliary Surgery Hospital) from January 2013 to December 2018 were included and the clinical features were retrospectively analyzed. A total of 232 patients were included, including 114 males and 118 females, aged (61.0±9.8) years. According to whether TO reached or not, they were divided into TO group ( n=86) and non-TO group ( n=146). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression were used to analyze the independent influencing factors of TO. The predictive nomogram model of TO was constructed. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was drawn to evaluate the predictive ability of the model, and the consistency of the predictive model was evaluated by the consistency curve graph and the Hosmer-Lemeshow test. Results:The 1-year and 3-years cumulative survival rates of patients with gallbladder carcinoma in the TO group (86.0% and 62.8%) were better than those in the non-TO group (46.6% and 27.3%), and the difference was statistically significant (χ 2=60.74, P<0.001). In multivariate analysis, higher T stage ( OR=0.16, 95% CI: 0.03-0.79, P<0.001) and cervical gallbladder cancer ( OR=0.14, 95% CI: 0.02-0.94, P=0.004) had the greatest negative association with a TO, and the higher the degree of tumor differentiation ( OR=7.08, 95% CI: 1.34-37.56, P=0.001), the easier it is to achieve TO. The ROC curve showed that the area under the curve of the predictive model was 0.84 (95% CI: 0.79-0.90), suggesting that the model had good predictive performance. A nomogram to assess the probability of TO was developed and had good accuracy in both the consistency curve and Hosmer-Lemeshow test (χ 2=5.77, P=0.673). Conclusion:Tumor T stage, tumor differentiation degree and tumor location are independent influencing factors for achieving TO in patients with gallbladder carcinoma after surgery. The nomogram model constructed according to the above conclusions could accurately predict the probability of reaching TO.
3.Explanation and Elaboration for the ARRIVE Guidelines 2.0—Reporting Animal Research and In Vivo Experiments (Ⅰ)
Jian WANG ; Jin LU ; Zhengwen MA ; Guoyuan CHEN ; Xiao LU ; Yu BAI ; Xiaoyu LIU ; Xuancheng LU ; Jing GAO ; Yao LI ; Wanyong PANG
Laboratory Animal and Comparative Medicine 2023;43(2):213-224
Improving the reproducibility of biomedical research results is a major challenge. Researchers reporting their research process transparently and accurately can help readers evaluate the reliability of the research results and further explore the experiment by repeating it or building upon its findings. The ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines, released in 2019 by the UK National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs), provide a checklist applicable to any in vivo animal research report. These guidelines aim to improve the standardization of experimental design, implementation, and reporting, as well as the reliability, repeatability, and clinical translatability of animal experimental results. The use of ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines not only enriches the details of animal experimental research reports, ensuring that information on animal experimental results is fully evaluated and utilized, but also enables readers to understand the content expressed by the author accurately and clearly, promoting the transparency and integrity of the fundamental research review process. At present, the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines have been widely adopted by international biomedical journals. this article is a Chinese translation based on the best practices of international journals following the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines in international journals, specifically for the complete interpretation of the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines published in the PLoS Biology journal in 2020 (original text can be found at
4.Interpretation and Elaboration for the ARRIVE Guidelines 2.0—Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments (V)
Zhengwen MA ; Xiaying LI ; Xiaoyu LIU ; Yao LI ; Jian WANG ; Jin LU ; Guoyuan CHEN ; Xiao LU ; Yu BAI ; Xuancheng LU ; Yonggang LIU ; Yufeng TAO ; Wanyong PANG
Laboratory Animal and Comparative Medicine 2024;44(1):105-114
Improving the reproducibility of biomedical research results is a major challenge. Transparent and accurate reporting of the research process enables readers to evaluate the reliability of the research results and further explore the experiment by repeating it or building upon its findings. The ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines, released in 2019 by the UK National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs), provide a checklist that is applicable to any in vivo animal research report. These guidelines aim to improve the standardization of experimental design, implementation, and reporting, as well as enhance the reliability, repeatability, and clinical translation of animal experimental results. The use of the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines not only enriches the details of animal experimental research reports, ensuring that information on animal experimental results is fully evaluated and utilized, but also enables readers to understand the content expressed by the author accurately and clearly, promoting the transparency and completeness of the fundamental research review process. At present, the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines have been widely adopted by international biomedical journals. This article is based on the best practices following the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines in international journals, and it interprets, explains, and elaborates in Chinese the fifth part of the comprehensive version of the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines published in PLoS Biology in 2020 (the original text can be found at