4.5 Article

Prevalence of allergic rhinitis in 3-6-year-old children in Wuhan of China

Journal

CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL ALLERGY
Volume 39, Issue 6, Pages 869-874

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2222.2009.03206.x

Keywords

allergic rhinitis; children; epidemiology; prevalence

Funding

  1. National Outstanding Youth Science Foundation of China [39925035]
  2. National Tenth Five-Year Project for Scientific and Technological Development of China [2004BA720A18-02]
  3. Key Clinical Subject Foundation of the Ministry of Health of China

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Only a few prevalence studies of allergic rhinitis (AR) have been reported in China. This study aimed to evaluate the prevalence of AR in a population of 3-6-year-old children in Wuhan, China. Sixteen kindergartens in Wuhan City were randomly selected; for each kindergarten, there were three classes from three grades (top, middle and bottom grade, 3-6 years old, respectively). Questionnaires generated by the authors were distributed and filled out by parents of the selected children, with a telephone interview subsequently. Skin prick test (SPT) was carried out on the children after a written consent was signed by the parents. A total of 1211 (89.5%) valid questionnaires were returned for evaluation. The adjusted current prevalence of AR in 3-6-year-old children was 10.8% with the diagnostic criterion of nasal symptoms(+) and SPTs(+). In the SPTs(+) children, the most common inhalant allergen was house dust mites (94.7%), followed by moulds (28.4%). The prevalence of AR was higher in males than that in females (13.0% vs. 7.7%, P < 0.05). 15.8% and 23.2% of AR children were sensitive to egg and milk, respectively. The percentage of children sensitive to both inhalant and food allergens was 27.4%. We found an unexpectedly high prevalence of diagnosed AR in 3-6-year-old children within the investigated population. Dust mite was the most important allergen source for 3-6-year-old children in Wuhan.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available