Objective:To assess the application effects of an energy-restricted diet combined with high-protein, high-dietary-fiber meal replacement powder and probiotics in overweight/obese adults.Methods:It was a randomized controlled trial. A consecutive sample of 150 overweight/obese adults who underwent physical examinations at the Health Care Center of the First Hospital of Hebei Medical University between November 2021 and March 2022. The participants were randomly assigned into the combined group, the high-protein group, and the common group (50 participants per group) using a random number table method. All three groups of subjects received weight loss health education, energy-restricted diet, and interventions with meal replacement powder and probiotics (or probiotic placebo). The combined group was given high-protein and high-dietary fiber meal replacement powder and probiotics. The high-protein group was given high-protein meal replacement powder and probiotic placebo. The common group was given ordinary meal replacement powder and probiotic placebo. The meal replacement powder was packaged in 35 g per bag, with main components of varying amounts of protein, fat, carbohydrates, vitamins, and trace elements. Both the probiotic powder and the probiotic placebo came in 2 g sachets. The primary components of probiotic powder were various Bifidobacterium, Lactobacillus and excipients, while the main component of probiotic placebo was excipients. The meal replacement powder and the probiotic powder or probiotic placebo were taken twice a day for a total of 12 weeks, one sachet of each time, followed by a 4-week follow-up. The body weight, body mass index, body fat mass, abdominal circumference and hip circumference were measured before the trial (week 0) and at the end of weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, and 16. The change rates of each indicator were calculated. Biochemical indicators, trace elements, and 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels were measured at the end of week 0, 4, 8, and 12. A product evaluation questionnaire was conducted at the end of week 12. A total of 19 cases dropped out due to various reasons. Finally, 46 cases in the combined group, 42 cases in the high-protein group, and 43 cases in the common group were included in the analysis. Paired-samples t test, Kruskal-Wallis H test, one-way analysis of variance, and Mann-Whitney U test were used to compare the differences in weight-loss and maintenance effects, safety and patient acceptance among the three intervention groups, and to analyze the application effect of the energy-restricted diet combined with high-protein and high-dietary fiber meal replacement powder plus probiotics in overweight/obese adults. Results:Among the 131 overweight/obese adults included in the analysis, there were 57 males and 74 females, with a mean age of (37.30±8.33) years. By the end of the week 12, the body mass index [26.87(25.77, 30.38) vs 29.61(27.96, 33.09) kg/m2; 27.10(24.70, 31.37) vs 29.40(27.20, 34.17) kg/m2; 27.98(26.43, 30.12) vs 29.88(28.22, 31.93) kg/m2] and body fat masses [22.15(17.70, 30.15) vs 30.75(25.63, 35.40) kg; 23.35(19.12, 28.70) vs 29.45(26.20, 37.05) kg; 26.80(24.10, 31.60) vs 30.00(26.00, 34.70) kg] in the combined group, the high-protein group and the common group were all lower than those at baseline (week 0) (all P<0.05). At the end of the week 12, the change rates of body fat mass and body mass index in the combined group were both higher than those in the high-protein group and the common group [(25.98%±9.58%) vs (23.88%±11.15%) and (9.35%±11.00%), 9.29%(7.23%, 11.58%) vs 7.96% (5.51%, 10.92%) and 5.77% (2.68%, 10.03%)] (all P<0.05). At the end of the week 12, the body fat mass in the combined group and the high-protein group were both lower than that in the common group [22.15(17.70, 30.15), 23.35(19.12, 28.70) vs 26.80(24.10, 31.60) kg] (both P<0.05). At the end of the week 12, the decreased values of uric acid and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein in the combined group were both higher than those in the high-protein group and the common group [17.15(13.02, 23.45) vs 1.50(0.22, 28.60) and 4.20(0.15, 19.95) μmol/L, 0.43(0.24, 0.60) vs 0.21(0.06, 0.43) and 0.28(-0.04, 0.88) mg/L](both P<0.05). No serious adverse events were observed during the intervention period and at the end of the intervention. In the product evaluation questionnaire, the combined group scored higher than the high-protein group and the common group on items such as usage frequency, taste, satiety, willingness to continue use, willingness to recommend to others, and willingness to purchase [4(3, 4) vs 3(3, 4) and 3(2, 4) points, 4(3, 4) vs 3(3, 4) and 3(2, 4) points, 4(3, 4) vs 3(3, 4) and 3(3, 3) points, 4(3, 4) vs 3(3, 4) and 3(3, 4) points, 4(3, 4) vs 3(3, 4) and 3(3, 3) points, 3(3, 4) vs 3(3, 4) and 3(2, 3) points] (all P<0.05). Conclusion:An energy-restricted diet combined with high-protein, high-dietary-fiber meal replacement powder and probiotics demonstrates superior weight-loss and weight-maintenance effects in overweight/obese adults, with high safety and great user acceptability.

Objective:To assess the application effects of an energy-restricted diet combined with high-protein, high-dietary-fiber meal replacement powder and probiotics in overweight/obese adults.Methods:It was a randomized controlled trial. A consecutive sample of 150 overweight/obese adults who underwent physical examinations at the Health Care Center of the First Hospital of Hebei Medical University between November 2021 and March 2022. The participants were randomly assigned into the combined group, the high-protein group, and the common group (50 participants per group) using a random number table method. All three groups of subjects received weight loss health education, energy-restricted diet, and interventions with meal replacement powder and probiotics (or probiotic placebo). The combined group was given high-protein and high-dietary fiber meal replacement powder and probiotics. The high-protein group was given high-protein meal replacement powder and probiotic placebo. The common group was given ordinary meal replacement powder and probiotic placebo. The meal replacement powder was packaged in 35 g per bag, with main components of varying amounts of protein, fat, carbohydrates, vitamins, and trace elements. Both the probiotic powder and the probiotic placebo came in 2 g sachets. The primary components of probiotic powder were various Bifidobacterium, Lactobacillus and excipients, while the main component of probiotic placebo was excipients. The meal replacement powder and the probiotic powder or probiotic placebo were taken twice a day for a total of 12 weeks, one sachet of each time, followed by a 4-week follow-up. The body weight, body mass index, body fat mass, abdominal circumference and hip circumference were measured before the trial (week 0) and at the end of weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, and 16. The change rates of each indicator were calculated. Biochemical indicators, trace elements, and 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels were measured at the end of week 0, 4, 8, and 12. A product evaluation questionnaire was conducted at the end of week 12. A total of 19 cases dropped out due to various reasons. Finally, 46 cases in the combined group, 42 cases in the high-protein group, and 43 cases in the common group were included in the analysis. Paired-samples t test, Kruskal-Wallis H test, one-way analysis of variance, and Mann-Whitney U test were used to compare the differences in weight-loss and maintenance effects, safety and patient acceptance among the three intervention groups, and to analyze the application effect of the energy-restricted diet combined with high-protein and high-dietary fiber meal replacement powder plus probiotics in overweight/obese adults. Results:Among the 131 overweight/obese adults included in the analysis, there were 57 males and 74 females, with a mean age of (37.30±8.33) years. By the end of the week 12, the body mass index [26.87(25.77, 30.38) vs 29.61(27.96, 33.09) kg/m2; 27.10(24.70, 31.37) vs 29.40(27.20, 34.17) kg/m2; 27.98(26.43, 30.12) vs 29.88(28.22, 31.93) kg/m2] and body fat masses [22.15(17.70, 30.15) vs 30.75(25.63, 35.40) kg; 23.35(19.12, 28.70) vs 29.45(26.20, 37.05) kg; 26.80(24.10, 31.60) vs 30.00(26.00, 34.70) kg] in the combined group, the high-protein group and the common group were all lower than those at baseline (week 0) (all P<0.05). At the end of the week 12, the change rates of body fat mass and body mass index in the combined group were both higher than those in the high-protein group and the common group [(25.98%±9.58%) vs (23.88%±11.15%) and (9.35%±11.00%), 9.29%(7.23%, 11.58%) vs 7.96% (5.51%, 10.92%) and 5.77% (2.68%, 10.03%)] (all P<0.05). At the end of the week 12, the body fat mass in the combined group and the high-protein group were both lower than that in the common group [22.15(17.70, 30.15), 23.35(19.12, 28.70) vs 26.80(24.10, 31.60) kg] (both P<0.05). At the end of the week 12, the decreased values of uric acid and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein in the combined group were both higher than those in the high-protein group and the common group [17.15(13.02, 23.45) vs 1.50(0.22, 28.60) and 4.20(0.15, 19.95) μmol/L, 0.43(0.24, 0.60) vs 0.21(0.06, 0.43) and 0.28(-0.04, 0.88) mg/L](both P<0.05). No serious adverse events were observed during the intervention period and at the end of the intervention. In the product evaluation questionnaire, the combined group scored higher than the high-protein group and the common group on items such as usage frequency, taste, satiety, willingness to continue use, willingness to recommend to others, and willingness to purchase [4(3, 4) vs 3(3, 4) and 3(2, 4) points, 4(3, 4) vs 3(3, 4) and 3(2, 4) points, 4(3, 4) vs 3(3, 4) and 3(3, 3) points, 4(3, 4) vs 3(3, 4) and 3(3, 4) points, 4(3, 4) vs 3(3, 4) and 3(3, 3) points, 3(3, 4) vs 3(3, 4) and 3(2, 3) points] (all P<0.05). Conclusion:An energy-restricted diet combined with high-protein, high-dietary-fiber meal replacement powder and probiotics demonstrates superior weight-loss and weight-maintenance effects in overweight/obese adults, with high safety and great user acceptability.

Objective To systematically evaluate the application efficacies of the peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) and venous port access (VPA) during chemotherapy in the patients with malignant tumor.Methods The research data published in CNKI,WanFang Database and Pubmed Database were collected from October 2008 to December 2016.The related researches were screened according to the inclusion criteria.Then the meta analysis was performed by using the Revman Manager 5.3 software.Results Finally 63 articles were included for conducting the meta analysis,involving 11 296 patients.The one-time catheter placing success rate of VPA and PICC was investigated by 30 included articles,and the merged effect showed that the difference had no statistical significance (OR =0.96,95 ％ CI:0.75-1.23,P＞0.05).The analysis results of 16 articles showed that the proportion of the catheter indwelling time ≥ 1 year in the patients adopting VAP was higher than that in the patients adopting PICC (OR =27.17,95 ％ CI:18.08-40.83,P＜0.05).The incidence rate of complications in the patients adopting VPA was lower than that in the patients adopting PICC (OR =0.19,95 ％ CI:0.16-0.22,P＜0.01).The living quality of VPA and PICC was investigated by 11 included articles,which showed that the living quality in the VAP group was significantly higher than that in the PICC group (OR=8.53,95％CI:5.88-12.38,P＜0.05).Conclnsion The indwelling time of VPA during chemotherapy in the patients with malignant tumor is longer,the incidence rate of complications is lower and the patient's living quality is higher.

Objective: To investigate the effects of different processing methods(steeping, boiling) and different adjuvants(alum, ginger, bile) on contents of amino acid and part of inorganic elements in Arisaema amurense Maxim.. Methods: The amino acid was determined by HPLC, and the inorganic elements were determined by AAS. Results: The total content of amino acid was the highest in raw Arisaema amurense Maxim. and the lowest in Arisaema amurense Maxim. processed with bile, wherease it was similar to other processed samples. The inorganic element content changed after it was processed. Conclusion: The long rinse is the key factor of losing amino acid in Arisaema amurense Maxim. after being processed. The content of inorganic element in adjuvants is the key factor of their content changes in Arisaema amurense Maxim. after it is processed.

The paper is about the systematic studies of biological characteristi cs of indigenous rhizobia isolated from Acacia spp The results showed th at the re were typical characteristics of rhizobia in 15 stains rhizobia isolated and purified from Acacia spp in Guangxi province Their physiological and bio chemic al characteristics were similar The nodules could appeared in Acacia crassic arpa seedlings inoculated with these rhizobia Among these rhizobia there wer e f a st growers and slow growers rhizobia Most of them could utilized inorganic n itr ogen sources Both five monosaccharides and three disaccharides could be utiliz e d as carbon sources except Heimu 1 could not utilized lactose Most of rhizobia produced acid except Zajiao 1,Taiwan 1 and Zhigan 4 stains produced alkai in BT B reaction

Twenty-five hybrid dogs were injected intravenously with oleic acid of the dose 0.3 ml/kg of body weight to prepare a model of respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) . The animals were killed 24 hours after injection. PaO2, PaCO2 and pH of the arterial and mixed venous blood were determined before and immediately, 0.5, 1?2, 4, 6, 22 and 24 hours after injection. The average pulmonary arterial pressure was measured hourly. The chest x-ray films were taken 2,4, 6 and 24 hours after injection. The electrolytes T3, T4, the hematocrit and RBC count, and the serum corticosteroid level were measured before and 24 hours after injection.25 dogs were divided into two groups; the control group consisted of 8 dogs and the therapeutic group consisted of 17 dogs, among which nine were treated with hyosine hydrobromide and 8 with dexamethasone. The histologic specimens of the animals of the control group and hyosine hydrobromide treated group were examined with both light and electron microscopes but the specimens of the animals of dexamethasone treated group were examined with light microscope only.It was found that dexamethasone is effective in the treatment of RDS produced with oleic acid injection while hyosine hydrobromide is of no value.

The levels of CEA, Lys, Fr and ?2-MG of serum and brochoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) were determined in 99 patients with inflammatory lung diseases and 23 healthy subjects for controls. Their levels in BALF were compared between diseased and normal sides of lungs. The value of diagnosis of individual formulas was suggested. The combined ditermination of multiple biomarkers in serum and BALF can help to raise the positivity and spcificity of diagnosis of lung cancer.