RESULTS: Both methods differed considerably in the mass recoveries of the individual cell wall components, which changed on how we assess their degradation characteristics. For example, Method B gave a higher degradation of lignin (61.9%), as compared to Method A (33.2%). Method A, however, showed a better correlation of IVGP with the ratio of lignin to total structural carbohydrates, as compared to Method B (Pearson's r of -0.84 versus -0.69). Nevertheless, Method B provides a more accurate quantification of lignin, reflecting its actual modification and degradation. With the information on the lignin structural features, Method B presents a substantial advantage in understanding the underlying mechanisms of lignin breakdown. Both methods, however, could not accurately quantify the cellulose contents - among others, due to interference of fungal biomass.
CONCLUSION: Method A only accounts for the recalcitrant residue and therefore is more suitable for evaluating ruminal digestibility. Method B allows a more accurate quantification of cell wall, required to understand and better explains the actual modification of the cell wall. The suitability of both methods, therefore, depends on their intended purposes. © 2019 The Authors. Journal of The Science of Food and Agriculture published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This scoping review was reported in alignment with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Studies were identified through searches of five databases: Cochrane, Scopus, ProQuest, MEDLINE, and Web of Science (WoS).
RESULTS: Of the 294 articles initially identified, 20 studies were included and analysed thematically after removing duplicates. The majority of these assessments measure body function and structure such as grip and pinch strength while the rest are measuring the activity and participation domain. Most of the hand assessments were performancebased measurements. It is suggestible to employ both types of assessments to obtain a comprehensive understanding of hand conditions in individuals with DM. While some validated hand assessments were identified, only the Duruöz Hand Index (DHI) has been validated as a reliable tool specifically for evaluating hand function in individuals with DM.
CONCLUSION: There is a need to evaluate the measurement properties of existing instruments for assessing the hand function in individuals with DM, or to develop hand assessments specifically for the DM population. This scoping review was forging a new path, by discovering diabetes care through the utilisation of hand assessments.