Retrospective Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2023.
World J Diabetes. Jun 15, 2023; 14(6): 883-891
Published online Jun 15, 2023. doi: 10.4239/wjd.v14.i6.883
Table 1 Comparison of data between two groups
Indicators
Group A (n = 50)
Group B (n = 50)
Statistical value
P value
Gender, n (%)χ2 = 0.1640.685
Male30 (60.00)28 (56.00)
Female20 (40.00)22 (44.00)
Age (mean ± SD, yr)43.12 ± 5.0243.25 ± 5.12t = 0.1280.898
Duration of diabetes (mean ± SD, yr)2.1 5 ± 0.522.23 ± 0.55t = 0.7470.457
Combined hyperlipidemia, n (%)χ2 = 0.1640.685
Yes20 (40.00)22 (44.00)
No30 (60.00)28 (56.00)
Combined hypertension, n (%)χ2 = 0.1700.680
Yes18 (36.00)20 (40.00)
No32 (64.00)30 (60.00)
Urine NAG (mean ± SD, U/L)14.05 ± 2.2019.45 ± 3.68t = 8.906< 0.001
Serum RBP (mean ± SD, mg/L)43.56 ± 5.5084.98 ± 15.70t = 17.606< 0.001
Table 2 Logistic regression analysis of the relationship between urinary N-acetyl-β-D-glucosaminidase, serum retinol-binding protein and diabetic nephropathy
Variable
B
SE
Wals
P value
OR
95%CI
Upper limit
Lower limit
Constant-9.3661.80826.8390.0000.000--
Urine NAG (U/L)0.5680.11126.3380.0001.7651.4212.192
Serum RBP (mg/L)0.3460.1099.9960.0021.4131.1411.751
Table 3 Efficacy analysis of urinary N-acetyl-β-D-glucosaminidase and serum retinol-binding protein expression for predicting diabetic nephropathy
Indicators
AUC
95%CI of AUC
SE
P value
Cut-off value
Specificity
Sensitivity
Youden index
Urine NAG0.8670.796-0.9390.0360.00011.855 (U/L)0.9800.8600.840
Serum RBP0.9510.902-1.0000.0250.00039.620 (mg/L)0.9800.7800.640
Combined diagnosis0.9740.936-1.0000.0200.000-0.9800.940