4.7 Article

Bisphenol A and Chronic Disease Risk Factors in US Children

期刊

PEDIATRICS
卷 132, 期 3, 页码 E637-E645

出版社

AMER ACAD PEDIATRICS
DOI: 10.1542/peds.2013-0106

关键词

bisphenol A; NHANES; children; obesity; endocrine disrupting chemical

资金

  1. Department of Pediatrics and the Office of the Vice President of Research, University of Michigan [5T32 DK071212-07]
  2. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences [P20ES018171]
  3. US Environmental Protection Agency [RD834800]
  4. National Institutes of Health (NIH)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relationship between urinary bisphenol A (BPA) levels and measures of adiposity and chronic disease risk factors for a nationally representative US pediatric sample. METHODS: We used the NHANES 2003-2010 to evaluate cross-sectional associations between urinary BPA and multiple measures of adiposity, cholesterol, insulin, and glucose for children aged 6 to 18 years, adjusting for relevant covariates (eg, demographics, urine creatinine, tobacco exposure, and soda consumption). RESULTS: We found a higher odds of obesity (BMI >= 95th percentile) with increasing quartiles of BPA for quartiles 2 vs 1 (odds ratio [OR] 1.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.17-2.60, P = .008), 3 vs 1 (OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.09-2.47, P = .02), and 4 vs 1 (OR 2.01, 95% CI 1.36-2.98, P = .001). We also found a higher odds of having an abnormal waist circumference-to-height ratio (quartiles 2 vs 1 [OR 1.37, 95% CI 0.98-1.93, P = .07], 3 vs 1 [OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.07-1.87, P = .02], and 4 vs 1 [OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.12-2.15, P = .01]). We did not find significant associations of BPA with any other chronic disease risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: Higher levels of urinary BPA were associated with a higher odds of obesity (BMI >95%) and abnormal waist circumference-to-height ratio. Longitudinal analyses are needed to elucidate temporal relationships between BPA exposure and the development of obesity and chronic disease risk factors in children.

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

4.7
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