4.6 Article

Iodine Status of the US Population, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2003-2004

期刊

THYROID
卷 18, 期 11, 页码 1207-1214

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/thy.2008.0161

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Since 1971, the general U. S. population has been monitored for dietary iodine sufficiency by urinary iodine (UI) measurements through the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). This report presents the UI levels for the population participating in NHANES 2003-2004. It is the third assessment of the U. S. population since NHANES III (1988-1994), when the median UI level was observed to decrease from NHANES I (1971-1974). Methods: In 2003-2004, a stratified, multistage, probability sample of approximately 5000 participants per year were selected to participate in NHANES Household interviews, and specimen collection were performed. UI level was measured by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry on a random subsample of 2526 participants aged 6 years and older. Results: The median UI level for the general U.S. population in 2003-2004 was 160 mu g/L (95% confidence interval [CI] 146-172), and 11.3 +/- 1.8% of the population had a UI level below 50 mu g/L. Children had a higher UI level than adolescents and adults. Among all (pregnant and nonpregnant) women of reproductive age, the median UI level was 139 mu g/L (95% CI 117-156), 15.1 +/- 3.2% women had a UI level <50 mu g/L, and Non-Hispanic blacks in this group had a lower UI level than other racial/ethnic groups. Conclusions: These findings affirm the stabilization of the UI level and the adequate iodine nutrition in the general U. S. population since 2000. Future surveys designed to achieve UI levels representative of pregnant women can improve the estimate of iodine sufficiency in this population subgroup. Continued monitoring of the population for iodine sufficiency is warranted because of groups at risk for iodine deficiency 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