4.6 Article

Increasing Prevalence of Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease Among United States Adolescents, 1988-1994 to 2007-2010

期刊

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS
卷 162, 期 3, 页码 496-+

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2012.08.043

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases [K23DK080953]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To assess recent trends in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) prevalence among US adolescents. Study design Cross-sectional data from 12 714 12-19 year olds (exclusions: chronic hepatitis, hepatotoxic medications) in the National Health and Examination Survey between 1988-1994 and 2007-2010 were used to estimate trends in suspected NAFLD, defined as overweight (body mass index >= 85th percentile) plus elevated alanine aminotransferase levels (boys >25.8 U/L; girls >22.1 U/L). Linear trends in prevalence and the independent effect of demographic indicators and adiposity on NAFLD risk were tested using regression models. Complex sampling methods and P values of <.05 were used to assess statistical significance. Results Suspected NAFLD prevalence (SE) rose from 3.9% (0.5) in 1988-1994 to 10.7% (0.9) in 2007-2010 (P < .0001), with increases among all race/ethnic subgroups, males and females, and those obese (P trend <=.0006 for all). Among those obese, the multivariate adjusted odds of suspected NAFLD were higher with increased age, body mass index, Mexican American race, and male sex; the adjusted odds in 2007-2010 were 2.0 times those in 1988-1994. In 2007-2010, 48.1% (3.7) of all obese males and 56.0% (3.5) of obese Mexican American males had suspected NAFLD. Conclusion Prevalence of suspected NAFLD has more than doubled over the past 20 years and currently affects nearly 11% of adolescents and one-half of obese males. The rapid increase among those obese, independent of body mass index, suggests that other modifiable risk factors have influenced this trend. (J Pediatr 2013;162:496-500).

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

4.6
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