Validity of self-reported body mass index among middle-aged participants in the Norwegian Women and Cancer study.

BACKGROUND: Body mass index (BMI) based on self-reported height and weight has been criticized as being biased because of an observed tendency for overweight and obese people to overestimate height and underestimate weight, resulting in higher misclassification for these groups. We examined the validity of BMI based on self-reported values in a sample of Norwegian women aged 44-64 years. METHODS: The study sample of 1,837 participants in the Norwegian Women and Cancer study self-reported height and weight, and then, within 1 year, either self-reported anthropometric again, or were measured by medical staff. Demographic and anthropometric were compared using t-tests and chi-square tests of independence. Misclassification of BMI categories was assessed by weighted Cohen's kappa and Bland-Altman plot. RESULTS: On average, the two measurements were taken 8 months apart, and self-reported weight increased by 0.6 kg (P<0.05), and BMI by 0.2 kg/m(2) (P<0.05). The distribution of BMI categories did not differ between self-reported and measured values. There was substantial agreement between self-reported values and those measured by medical staff (weighted kappa 0.73). Under-reporting resulting in misclassification of BMI category was most common among overweight women (36%), but the highest proportion of extreme under-reporting was found in obese women (18% outside the 95% limits of agreement). The cumulative distribution curves for the measured and self-reported values closely followed each other, but measurements by medical staff were shifted slightly toward higher BMI values. CONCLUSION: While there was substantial agreement between self-reported and measured BMI values, there was small but statistically significant under-reporting of weight and thus self-reported BMI. The tendency to under-report was largest among overweight women, while the largest degree of under-reporting was found in the obese group. Self-reported weight and height provide a valid ranking of BMI for middle-aged Norwegian women.

Adductor canal block for postoperative pain treatment after revision knee arthroplasty: a blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Revision knee arthroplasty is assumed to be even more painful than primary knee arthroplasty and predominantly performed in chronic pain patients, which challenges postoperative pain treatment. We hypothesized that the adductor canal block, effective for pain relief after primary total knee arthroplasty, may reduce pain during knee flexion (primary endpoint: at 4 h) compared with placebo after revision total knee arthroplasty. Secondary endpoints were pain at rest, morphine consumption and morphine-related side effects. METHODS: We included patients scheduled for revision knee arthroplasty in general anesthesia into this blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized trial. Patients were allocated to an adductor canal block via a catheter with either ropivacaine or placebo; bolus of 0.75% ropivacaine/saline, followed by infusion of 0.2% ropivacaine/saline. Clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT01191593. RESULTS: We enrolled 36 patients, of which 30 were analyzed. Mean pain scores during knee flexion at 4 h (primary endpoint) were: 52 ± 22 versus 71 ± 25 mm (mean difference 19, 95% CI: 1 to 37, P = 0.04), ropivacaine and placebo group respectively. When calculated as area under the curve (1-8 h/7 h) pain scores were 55 ± 21 versus 69 ± 21 mm during knee flexion (P = 0.11) and 39 ± 18 versus 45 ± 23 mm at rest (P = 0.43), ropivacaine and placebo group respectively. Groups were similar regarding morphine consumption and morphine-related side effects (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The only statistically significant difference found between groups was in the primary endpoint: pain during knee flexion at 4 h. However, due to a larger than anticipated dropout rate and heterogeneous study population, the study was underpowered. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01191593.

Adductor canal block versus femoral nerve block and quadriceps strength: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study in healthy volunteers.

BACKGROUND: The authors hypothesized that the adductor canal block (ACB), a predominant sensory blockade, reduces quadriceps strength compared with placebo (primary endpoint, area under the curve, 0.5-6 h), but less than the femoral nerve block (FNB; secondary endpoint). Other secondary endpoints were adductor strength and ability to ambulate. METHODS: The authors enrolled healthy young men into this double blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, crossover study. On two separate study days, subjects received either ACB or FNB with ropivacaine, and placebo in the opposite limb. Strength was assessed as maximum voluntary isometric contraction for quadriceps and adductor muscles. In addition, subjects performed three standardized ambulation tests. Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01449097. RESULTS: Twelve subjects were randomized, 11 analyzed. Quadriceps strength (area under the curve, 0.5-6 h) was significantly reduced when comparing ACB with placebo (5.0 ± 1.0 vs. 5.9 ± 0.6, P = 0.02, CI: -1.5 to -0.2), FNB with placebo (P = 0.0004), and when comparing FNB with ACB (P = 0.002). The mean reduction from baseline was 8% with ACB and 49% with FNB. The only statistically significant difference in adductor strength was between placebo and FNB (P = 0.007). Performance in all mobilization tests was reduced after an FNB compared with an ACB (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: As compared with placebo ACB statistically significantly reduced quadriceps strength, but the reduction was only 8% from baseline. ACB preserved quadriceps strength and ability to ambulate better than FNB did. Future studies are needed to compare the analgesic effect of the ACB with the FNB in a clinical setting.

Dietary intake of iron, heme-iron and magnesium and pancreatic cancer risk in the European prospective investigation into cancer and nutrition cohort.

Several studies support a protective effect of dietary magnesium against type 2 diabetes, but a harmful effect for iron. As diabetes has been linked to pancreatic cancer, intake of these nutrients may be also associated with this cancer. We examined the association between dietary intake of magnesium, total iron and heme-iron and pancreatic cancer risk in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) cohort. In total, 142,203 men and 334,999 women, recruited between 1992 and 2000, were included. After an average follow-up of 11.3 years, 396 men and 469 women developed exocrine pancreatic cancer. Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained using Cox regression stratified by age and center, and adjusted for energy intake, smoking status, height, weight, and self-reported diabetes status. Neither intake of magnesium, total iron nor heme-iron was associated with pancreatic cancer risk. In stratified analyses, a borderline inverse association was observed among overweight men (body mass index, ≥ 25 kg/m(2) ) with magnesium (HR(per 100 mg/day increase) = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.63-1.01) although this was less apparent using calibrated intake. In female smokers, a higher intake of heme-iron was associated with a higher pancreatic cancer risk (HR (per 1 mg/day increase) = 1.38, 95% CI = 1.10-1.74). After calibration, this risk increased significantly to 2.5-fold (95% CI = 1.22-5.28). Overall, dietary magnesium, total iron and heme-iron were not associated with pancreatic cancer risk during the follow-up period. Our observation that heme-iron was associated with increased pancreatic cancer risk in female smokers warrants replication in additional study populations.