4.3 Article

Bone mineral density, pulmonary function, chronological age, and age at diagnosis in children and adolescents with cystic fibrosis

期刊

JORNAL DE PEDIATRIA
卷 89, 期 2, 页码 151-157

出版社

SOC BRASIL PEDIATRIA
DOI: 10.1016/j.jped.2013.03.008

关键词

Bone mineral density; Cystic fibrosis; Pulmonary function

资金

  1. CNPq

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To assess bone mineral density in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF), and to correlate it with possible intervening variables. Methods: Children and adolescents diagnosed with CF, aged 6 to 18 years, followed at the outpatient clinic were included in the study. First, demographic data were collected and, subsequently, patients underwent a spirometric test. All patients answered the Cystic Fibrosis Quality of Life Questionnaire (CFQ) and underwent the six-minute walk test (6MWT) and bone densitometry (DXA). Results: A total of 25 CF patients were included, of which 56% were males. The mean age was 12.3 +/- 3.4 years; mean height was 149.2 +/- 14.4 cm; and mean weight was 44.4 +/- 13.9 kg. Most results on pulmonary function and bone mineral density (BMD) were within normal limits. The mean forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) was 92.5 +/- 23.6 (% of predicted), mean forced vital capacity (FVC) was 104.4 +/- 21.3 (% of predicted), and mean BMD z-score was 0.1 +/- 1.0. BMD was moderately correlated with FEV1 (r = 0.43, p = 0.03) and FVC (r = 0.57, p = 0.003). Regarding chronological age and age at diagnosis, a moderate and inverse correlation was also found (r = -0.55, p = 0.004; r = -0.57, p = 0.003, respectively). However, no significant correlations were found with the data from CFQ, 6MWT, and body mass index. Conclusion: Most patients had BMD within normal limits and presented a positive correlation with pulmonary function, as well as a negative correlation with chronological age and age at diagnosis. (C) 2013 Sociedade Brasileira de Pediatria. Published by Elsevier Editora Ltda. All rights reserved.

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

4.3
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