Application of body mass index adjusted for fat mass (BMIfat) obtained by bioelectrical impedance in adults

Introduction: Body mass index (BMI) has been one of the methods most frequently used for diagnose obesity, but it isn't consider body composition. Objective: This study intends to apply one new adiposity index, the BMI adjusted for fat mass (BMIfat) developed by Mialich, et al. (2011), in a adult Brazilian sample. Methods: A cross-sectional study with 501 individuals of both genders (366 women, 135 men) aged 17 to 38 years and mean age was 20.4 ± 2.8 years, mean weight 63.0 ± 13.5 kg, mean height 166.9 ± 9.0 cm, and BMI 22.4 ± 3.4 kg/m². Results and discussion: High and satisfactory R2 values were obtained, i.e., 91.1%, 91.9% and 88.8% for the sample as a whole and for men and women, respectively. Considering this BMIfat were developed new ranges, as follows: 1.35 to 1.65 (nutritional risk for malnutrition), > 1.65 and ≤ 2.0 (normal weight) and > 2.0 (obesity). The BMIfat had a more accurate capacity of detecting obese individuals (0.980. 0.993, 0.974) considering the sample as a whole and women and men, respectively, compared to the traditional BMI (0.932, 0.956, 0.95). Were also defined new cut-off points for the traditional BMI for the classification of obesity, i.e.: 25.24 kg/m² and 28.38 kg/m² for men and women, respectively. Conclusion: The BMIfat was applied for the present population and can be adopted in clinical practice. Further studies are needed to determine its application to different ethnic groups and to compare this index to others previously described in the scientific literature.

Management of the clinical issue of constipation with abdominal complaints in adults: a national survey of Primary Care physicians and gastroenterologists

Irritable bowel syndrome and functional constipation represent a relevant and common health issue. However, real-world clinical practice includes patients with constipation who may or may not have other abdominal complaints (pain, bloating, abdominal discomfort) with variable frequency. The goal of the present study was to obtain information on the workload entailed by patients with constipation and associated abdominal complaints, predominant clinical behaviors, education needs, and potential daily practice aids both in Primary Care and gastroenterology settings. The clinical behavior of doctors is generally similar at both levels, despite differences in healthcare approach: use of empiric therapies and clinically guided diagnostic tests, with some differences in colonoscopy use (not always directly accessible from Primary Care). Regarding perceptions, general support and osmotic laxatives are most valued by PC doctors, whereas osmotic laxatives, combined laxatives, and linaclotide are most valued by GE specialists. Furthermore, over half of respondents considered differentiating both diagnoses as challenging. Finally, considerable education needs are self-acknowledged at both levels, as is a demand for guidelines and protocols to help in managing this issue in clinical practice. A strength of this study is its providing a joint photograph of the medical approach and the perceptions of constipation with abdominal discomfort from a medical standpoint. Weaknesses include self-declaration (no formal validation) and a response rate potentially biased by professional motivation.