4.7 Article

Association between Selenium Status and Chronic Kidney Disease in Middle-Aged and Older Chinese Based on CHNS Data

期刊

NUTRIENTS
卷 14, 期 13, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu14132695

关键词

selenium; chronic kidney disease (CKD); CHNS; ROC

资金

  1. Chongqing Nutrition Society's project [2019001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to investigate the association between CKD prevalence and selenium intake in middle-aged and older Chinese. The results showed that an adequate selenium intake may have a positive effect on CKD. The influence of individual weight and location on this effect needs further exploration.
Background: The association between selenium and chronic kidney disease (CKD) remains controversial. Population studies with large samples facilitate the reliability of conclusions. Objective: In this study, we aimed to describe the prevalence of a CKD association with selenium intake in middle-aged and older Chinese. Methods: Data for this study were obtained from the China Health and Nutrition Survey (CHNS). A total of 5381 participants (aged >= 45) with biochemical test data were included in the study. Logistic regression models were used to examine the association between diet selenium intake (quartile) and the prevalence of CKD. Results: A total of 942 (17.01%) participants had CKD. The prevalence of CKD was 23.33%, 20.32%, 14.98%, and 9.25% among participants with average selenium intakes of 21.5 +/- 4.82, 33.1 +/- 2.79, 43.8 +/- 3.70, and 67.0 +/- 13.97 mu g/day, respectively. In the fully adjusted model (Model 3), across the quartiles of selenium intake, the ORs for the prevalence of CKD were 1.00, 1.09 (95% CI 0.69-1.73), 0.82 (95% CI 0.49-1.38), and 0.43 (95% CI 0.22-0.85). The protein intake had a certain diagnostic significance for the selenium intake. Conclusions: An adequate selenium intake may have a positive effect on CKD. The influence of individual weight and location on the effect of selenium on CKD needs to be further explored.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据