4.4 Article

Aeroallergen Sensitization Status in South Korea From 2018 to 2021

期刊

出版社

KOREAN SOC OTORHINOLARYNGOL
DOI: 10.21053/ceo.2022.00248

关键词

Aeroallergen; Sensitization; Multiple Allergosorbent Tests; Korea

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study analyzed the sensitization status of South Koreans to aeroallergens and found significant differences in sensitization patterns among different age groups and regions.
Objectives. Studies on the aeroallergen sensitization status of South Koreans based on large-scale data are lacking. Methods. We analyzed data from 368,156 multiple allergosorbent tests collected by a domestic medical diagnosis company from 3,735 hospitals nationwide from 2018 to 2021. We additionally collected sex, age, and regional data. If the level of an aeroallergen was 0.35 IU/mL or more, the test result for that aeroallergen was defined as positive, and positive cases were defined as those where one aeroallergen was positive. The positive ratio (PR) for aeroallergens was calculated using positive cases. Results. In total, 347,996 cases were analyzed, excluding cases with missing data. The percentage of positive cases was 56.7%, which was highest in adolescents (74.1%) and lowest in the elderly (47.0%). All four types of mites had high PRs (0.382-0.655), and mold had low PRs (0.023-0.058). Among pollens, the PRs of grasses were generally high (more than 0.14), followed by weeds (approximately 0.10), and the PRs of woods was less than 0.1. For animals, cats and dogs had the highest PRs, at 0.231 and 0.183, respectively. The value for cockroaches was also high, at 0.211. The PRs of indoor aeroallergens, such as mites, molds, and animals, were high in adolescents, and those of pollen and cockroaches were high in the elderly. In Jeju, the PR of Japanese cedars was extremely high (0.222). Conclusion. Koreans were found to be sensitized to a wide variety of aeroallergens. There were significant differences in sensitization patterns according to age and region.

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