4.4 Article

Prevalence and risk factors for Helicobacter pylori Infection in chinese populations

期刊

HELICOBACTER
卷 13, 期 2, 页码 157-165

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-5378.2008.00586.x

关键词

Helicobacter pylori; epidemiology; risk factors

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The prevalence of Helicobacter pylori is higher in developing countries. The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence and risk factors of H. pylori infection in areas with high prevalence of gastric cancer in Jiangsu Province, China. Methods: A prospective epidemiologic survey of H. pylori infection was accomplished in a natural population of 1457 individuals in Xiangshui and Gaoyou counties, Jiangsu Province, China. Questionnaires and laboratory tests for H. pylori infection (C-13-urea breath test and serum IgG antibodies to H. pylori) were used and performed, respectively. Result: Among 1371 subjects who completed questionnaires and H. pylori detection, 851 (62%) were H. pylori positive. The prevalence reached a peak at the age of 30-40 years (67%). There was no sex difference. The annual family income level was shown to be positively correlated with the risk of H. pylori infection. The prevalence of H. pylori infection was also associated with family size, education level, and several diet-related factors, such as the number of times cooked rice and potatoes eaten per week, and a family history of stomach diseases. Compared to nonsymptomatic individuals, people with dyspeptic symptoms (nausea, vomiting, and belching) presented a low prevalence of H. pylori infection. No association between H. pylori prevalence and smoking or drinking was found. Using multivariate logistic regression analysis, annual family income and education level were the independent predictors for H. pylori infection. Conclusion: High prevalence of H. pylori infection was found in areas with a high risk of gastric cancer and was related to several risk factors. The underlying mechanisms need to be further investigated.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据