4.6 Article

Overweight/Obesity and Respiratory and Allergic Disease in Children: International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood (ISAAC) Phase Two

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 9, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0113996

关键词

-

资金

  1. Fifth Framework Program of European Commission [QLK4-CT-1999-01288]
  2. Almeria: Fondo de Investigacion Sanitaria [00/1092E]
  3. Ankara*: Scientific and Technical Research council of Turkey [SPAG-2237]
  4. Treatment and Research Foundation of Turkey for Allergy, Asthma and Immunology
  5. Research Foundation of Hacettepe University Faculty of Medicine
  6. Athens: the Thorax Foundation Research Centre, Greece
  7. Cartagena: Fondo de Investigacion Sanitaria [00/1092E]
  8. Creteil: French Institute of Health and Medical Research (Institut National de la Sante et de la Recherche Medicale (INSERM) [IDS 337/4D001D, 737/69480]
  9. Ministere de l'Emploi et de la Solidarite [227/7HL02D]
  10. Mutuelle Generale de l'Education Nationale [257/8PL01F]
  11. Agence de l'Environnement et de la Maitrise de l'Energie ADEME/PRIMEQUAL 96 [FJ012B]
  12. Dresden: German Ministry of Education and Research [01 EE 9411-3]
  13. Hastings: Health Research Council of New Zealand, Asthma and Respiratory Foundation of New Zealand
  14. Hawkes Bay Medical Research Foundation
  15. Kintampo*: Linkoping: the Swedish Foundation for Health Care Sciences and Allergy Research
  16. Madrid: Fondo de Investigacion Sanitaria [00/1092E]
  17. Mumbai*: Jaslok Hospital & Research Centre
  18. Munich: German Ministry of Education and Research [01 EE 9411-3]
  19. Ostersund: the Swedish Foundation for Health Care Sciences and Allergy Research
  20. Pichincha province: Wellcome Trust
  21. Porto Alegre: Rudolf und Clothilde Eberhardt Foundation, Ulm, Germany
  22. Ramallah: Al-Quds University, Directorate General for International Cooperation and Belgian Technical Cooperation
  23. Riga*
  24. Rome: Lazio Regional Health Authority
  25. Tallinn*
  26. Tbilisi*
  27. Thessaloniki: the Thorax Foundation Research Centre, Greece
  28. Tirana*
  29. Utrecht: Dutch Ministries of the Environment, of Health and of Transport, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
  30. Valencia: Fondo de Investigacion Sanitaria [00/1092E]
  31. West Sussex: South Thames National Health Service Regional Research and Development [SPGS 573]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Childhood obesity and asthma are increasing worldwide. A possible link between the two conditions has been postulated. Methods: Cross-sectional studies of stratified random samples of 8-12-year-old children (n=10 652) (16 centres in affluent and 8 centres in non-affluent countries) used the standardized methodology of ISAAC Phase Two. Respiratory and allergic symptoms were ascertained by parental questionnaires. Tests for allergic disease were performed. Height and weight were measured, and overweight and obesity were defined according to international definitions. Prevalence rates and prevalence odds ratios were calculated. Results: Overweight (odds ratio=1.14, 95%-confidence interval: 0.98; 1.33) and obesity (odds ratio=1.67, 95%-confidence interval: 1.25; 2.21) were related to wheeze. The relationship was stronger in affluent than in non-affluent centres. Similar results were found for cough and phlegm, rhinitis and eczema but the associations were mostly driven by children with wheeze. There was a clear association of overweight and obesity with airways obstruction (change in FEV1/FVC, -0.90, 95%-confidence interval: -1.33%; -0.47%, for overweight and -2.46%, 95%-confidence interval: -3.84%; -1.07%, for obesity) whereas the results for the other objective markers, including atopy, were null. Conclusions: Our data from a large international child population confirm that there is a strong relation of body mass index with wheeze especially in affluent countries. Moreover, body mass index is associated with an objective marker of airways obstruction (FEV1/FVC) but no other objective markers of respiratory and allergic disorders.

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