4.3 Article

Prevalence and allergen of allergic rhinitis in Korean children

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF RHINOLOGY & ALLERGY
卷 30, 期 3, 页码 E72-E78

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.2500/ajra.2013.27.4317

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministry of Environment of Korea

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: In recent decades, the amount of data about allergic rhinitis (AR) in Korean National Health Insurance Service has increased. Objective: To investigate the prevalence and quality of sensitized allergens of AR in Korean children and adolescents. Methods: This study obtained the results of the Korean International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood questionnaires and the skin-prick test (SPT) results of 14,356 students who participated in a health screening from 2010 to 2014. AR was defined as one with current symptoms of AR with at least one or more positive results of an SPT with inhalant allergens. Results: The prevalence of AR in children was 20.8%. Positive rates of the allergen group were 87.3% for house-dust mites, 37.0% for pollen, 12.4% for mold, and 8.4% for pets. The common allergens in descending order were Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus, Dermatophagoides farinae, Betula, Humulus, Alnus, and Alternaria. As the children became older, pollen-sensitization rates tended to increase (p value for trends, <0.001). In metropolitan and middle inland areas, weed pollen was the most common pollen. The rates of tree-pollen sensitization were the highest at the seaside and in the southern inland. The most common comorbid allergic diseases associated with AR were pollen allergy and allergic conjunctivitis at 37.0% and 34.5%, respectively. Conclusions: This was the first study conducted in Korea to investigate the prevalence of AR in the general population by using both questionnaires and SPTs. The allergens used for the SPTs were chosen based on the common allergens in this study, and this current pollen data will contribute to establish the cause of increasing AR prevalence in Korea.

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

4.3
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