4.5 Article

Prevalence, comorbidities and risk factors of restless legs syndrome in the Korean elderly population - results from the Korean Longitudinal Study on Health and Aging

期刊

JOURNAL OF SLEEP RESEARCH
卷 19, 期 1, 页码 87-92

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2869.2009.00739.x

关键词

comorbidity; elderly; prevalence; restless legs syndrome; risk factor

资金

  1. Pfizer Global Pharmaceuticals [06-05-039]
  2. Seongnam City Government of Korea [800-20050211]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

P>The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence, neuropsychiatric comorbidities, iron metabolism and potential risk factors of restless legs syndrome (RLS) in the elderly Korean population. As a community-based epidemiological study, a simple random sample of 1118 was drawn from a roster of 61 730 adult individuals aged 65 years and older and 714 participated. The diagnosis of RLS was established in face-to-face interviews using the four minimal diagnostic criteria for RLS recommended by National Institute of Health. Depressive symptoms, nocturnal sleep disturbances, daytime sleepiness and quality of life were evaluated. Laboratory tests of iron metabolism, markers of inflammation, renal and endocrine function, hormones and vitamins were performed. A total of 59 patients (42 women and 17 men) were diagnosed as RLS with a prevalence of 8.3% (95% confidence interval: 6.2-10.3%), with an almost twofold higher prevalence in women (10.2%) than in men (5.7%). Depression was more prevalent among the subjects with RLS than without RLS and poor nocturnal sleep and quality of life were also observed in subjects with RLS. Daytime sleepiness was observed in 32.8% of subjects with RLS. No significant differences were found in iron metabolism or other risk factors between the subjects with and without RLS. The prevalence of RLS in the Korean elderly population was comparable with that in the Caucasian population. RLS had undesirable effects on mood, sleep quality and general wellbeing of elderly individuals.

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

4.5
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