4.7 Article

Zinc Nutritional Status in a Series of Children with Chronic Diseases: A Cross-Sectional Study

Journal

NUTRIENTS
Volume 13, Issue 4, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu13041121

Keywords

serum zinc level; dietary zinc intake; hypozincemia; dietary zinc deficiency; body mass index; iron; magnesium

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study evaluated the zinc nutritional status of children with chronic diseases and found that 69% of participants had a zinc intake lower than recommended, which may put them at high risk of zinc deficiency.
Background: Zinc is an essential trace element for the normal growth and development of human beings. The main objective was to evaluate the nutritional status of zinc and its association with nutritional indicators in a series of children with chronic diseases. Methods: The prevalence of patients with dietary zinc deficiency or deficit zinc intake (<80% DRI: dietary reference intake) was analyzed through prospective 72 h dietary surveys, and serum zinc deficiency or hypozincemia (<= 70 mu g/dL in children under 10 years of age in both sexes and in females older than 10 years and <74 mu g/dL in males older than 10 years) was measured through atomic absorption spectrophotometry. The participants were classified according to their nutritional status by body mass index (BMI). Results: Mean serum zinc level in obese (87 mu g/dL), undernourished (85 mu g/dL), and eutrophic children (88 mu g/dL) were normal, but in the undernutrition (60% DRI) and eutrophic (67% DRI) groups the mean dietary zinc intake was low compared to that in the obesity group (81% DRI). There were different associations between nutritional parameters, dietary zinc intake, and serum zinc. All patients with hypozincemia had dietary zinc deficiency. Conclusions: In the whole series, 69% of participants showed a zinc intake lower than recommended and might be at high risk of zinc deficiency.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available