4.6 Article

Seroepidemiological survey of hepatitis B virus infection among 764,460 women of childbearing age in rural China: A cross-sectional study

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL VIROLOGY
卷 81, 期 -, 页码 47-52

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcv.2016.05.014

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Department of Maternal and Child Health of National Health and Family Planning Commission (NHFPC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: China has historically been a highly endemic area for hepatitis B infection. Progress has been made in tackling the disease in infants and children, but infection rates remain high in adults, especially in rural areas. Current data on the prevalence of HBV in women of childbearing age is lacking. Objectives: We analyzed the HBV serological status of women of childbearing age in rural China to provide data to inform the development of prevention and control measures for hepatitis B. Study design: Questionnaires and serum samples have been collected from rural couples aged 20-49 years in 292 counties in 2014. ELISA methods were employed to detect serum HBV markers. Results: From January to December 2014, 771,567 questionnaires and 764,460 blood samples were collected. Among these, 44,057 (5.76%) women tested positive for HBsAg and 100,519 (13.24%) tested positive for anti-HBc. In this sub group, 39,862 (39.66%) women also tested positive for HBsAg. There were 338,528 (41.67%) tested positive for anti-HBs and single anti-HBs presented in 259,800 (33.98%) women. In total, 385,140 (50.38%) tested negative for all HBV markers. Of the HBsAg positive participants, 12,520 (28.42%) were positive for both HBsAg and HBeAg, and therefore infectious although this declined with age (P < 0.001). Prevalence of HBsAg positivity was highest in the 'eastern' region (P < 0.001). Conclusions: HBV prevalence among women of childbearing age in rural China has declined compared to the 2006 National study of women aged 15-59 years (5.76 vs. 6.73%), but remains high. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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