4.4 Article

Raynaud's phenomenon in Northern Sweden: a population-based nested case-control study

期刊

RHEUMATOLOGY INTERNATIONAL
卷 39, 期 2, 页码 265-275

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00296-018-4133-y

关键词

Cold exposure; Hand; Frostbite; Epidemiology; Occupational exposure; Risk factors

资金

  1. Umea University
  2. Vasterbotten County Council
  3. Vasterbotten County Council [VLL-646641]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to determine the association between individual and external exposure factors, and the reporting of Raynaud's phenomenon, with or without concomitant cold sensitivity. In a population-based nested case-control study, cases with Raynaud's phenomenon (N=578), and matched controls (N=1156), were asked to respond to a questionnaire focusing on different risk factors. Univariate and multiple conditional logistic regression were performed. Analyses were stratified according to whether the cases reported cold sensitivity or not. In total, 1400 out of 1734 study subjects answered the questionnaire (response rate 80.7%). In the final multiple model, the factor with the strongest association to Raynaud's phenomenon, with and without cold sensitivity, was previous frostbite affecting the hands (OR 12.44; 95% CI 5.84-26.52 and OR 4.01; 95% CI 1.78-9.01, respectively). Upper extremity nerve injury was associated to reporting Raynaud's phenomenon and cold sensitivity (OR 2.23; 95% CI 1.29-3.85), but not Raynaud's phenomenon alone. Reporting any exposure to hand-arm vibration or cumulative cold exposure was significant in univariate analyses for cases with both Raynaud's phenomenon and cold sensitivity, but not in the multiple model. Raynaud's phenomenon is strongly associated to previous cold injury, with a larger effect size among those who also report cold sensitivity. The fact that only upper extremity nerve injury differed significantly between case groups in our multiple model offers additional support to the neural basis for cold sensitivity.

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

4.4
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