Search

Objective:

To explore the accuracy of estimated 24-h urinary iodine excretion (24-h UIEest) in assessing iodine nutritional status.

Design:

Fasting venous blood, 24-h and spot urine samples were collected during the day. The urinary iodine concentration (UIC) and urinary creatinine concentration (UCrC) were measured, and the urinary iodine-to-creatinine ratio (UI/Cr), 24-h UIEest, and 24-h urinary iodine excretion (24-h UIE) were calculated. At the population level, correlation and consistency between UIC, UI/Cr, 24-h UIEest and 24-h UIE were assessed using correlation analysis and Bland–Altman plots. At the individual level, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to analyse the accuracy of the above indicators for evaluating insufficient and excessive iodine intake. The reference interval of 24-h UIEest was established based on percentile values.

Setting:

Indicator can accurately evaluate individual iodine nutrition during pregnancy remains controversial.

Participants:

Pregnant women (n 788).

Results:

Using 24-h UIE as standard, the correlation coefficients of 24-h UIEest from different periods of the day ranged from 0·409 to 0·531, and the relative average differences ranged from 4·4 % to 10·9 %. For diagnosis of insufficient iodine intake, the area under the ROC curve of 24-h UIEest was 0·754, sensitivity and specificity were 79·6 % and 65·4 %, respectively. For diagnosis of excessive iodine intake, the area of 24-h UIEest was 0·771, sensitivity and specificity were 66·7 % and 82·0 %, respectively. The reference interval of 24-h UIEest was 58·43–597·65 μg.

Conclusions:

Twenty-four-hour UIEest can better indicate iodine nutritional status at a relatively large sample size in a given population of pregnant women. It can be used for early screening at the individual level to obtain more lead time for pregnant women.

Summary

The coexistence of several layers of fundamental rights with different goals, plus procedures for protecting fundamental rights in the courts that differ in scope, makes for a particularly complex situation. That situation is even more complicated in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, since it raises particularly sensitive issues for fundamental rights. Furthermore, the mutual recognition principle implies that decisions taken in one Member State are recognised and executed in any other Member State based on the presumption that all Members States have a sufficient level of fundamental rights protection. Hence, it is of paramount importance to ascertain whether sufficient protection of fundamental rights is guaranteed in the AFSJ, what are its core elements and what are the problems related to its operation in practice. Within that framework, this chapter discusses whether the CJEU is building a European standard of fundamental rights in the AFSJ. To that end, it examines, first, how the CJEU is relying on general principles and secondary law to strengthen the standard of fundamental rights, and second, how that standard is adapted to horizontal cooperation in a scenario of mutual trust.

Search Results

Refine search

Refine search

Actions for selected content:

2 results

Evaluation of iodine nutritional status during pregnancy by estimated 24-h urinary iodine excretion: population variation range and individual accuracy

2 - A European Standard of Human Rights Protection?

Summary

Search Results

Refine search

Refine search

Actions for selected content:

Save Search

2 results

Evaluation of iodine nutritional status during pregnancy by estimated 24-h urinary iodine excretion: population variation range and individual accuracy

2 - A European Standard of Human Rights Protection?

Summary