4.1 Article

Sleep-related disorders in Latin-American children with atopic dermatitis: A case control study

期刊

ALLERGOLOGIA ET IMMUNOPATHOLOGIA
卷 45, 期 3, 页码 276-282

出版社

ELSEVIER ESPANA SLU
DOI: 10.1016/j.aller.2016.08.014

关键词

Atopic dermatitis; Children; Questionnaire; SCORAD; Sleep disorders

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Atopic dermatitis (AD) has been associated with impairment of sleep. The aim of this study was to evaluate sleep disorders in AD Latin-American children (410 years) from nine countries, and in normal controls (C). Methods: Parents from 454 C and 340 AD children from referral clinics answered the Children Sleep Habits Questionnaire (CSHQ), a one-week retrospective 33 questions survey under seven items (bedtime resistance, sleep duration, sleep anxiety, night awakening, parasomnias, sleep-disordered breathing and daytime sleepiness). Total CSHQ score and items were analysed in both C and AD groups. Spearman's correlation coefficient between SCORAD (Scoring atopic dermatitis), all subscales and total CSHQ were also obtained. Results: C and AD groups were similar regarding age, however, significantly higher values for total CSHQ (62.2 +/- 16.1 vs 53.3 +/- 12.7, respectively) and items were observed among AD children in comparison to C, and they were higher among those with moderate (54.8%) or severe (4.3%) AD. Except for sleep duration (r = -0.02, p = 0.698), there was a significant Spearman's correlation index for bedtime resistance (0.24, p < 0.0001), sleep anxiety (0.29, p < 0.0001), night awakening (0.36, p < 0.0001), parasomnias (0.54, p < 0.0001), sleep-disordered breathing (0.42, p < 0.0001), daytime sleepiness (0.26, p < 0.0001) and total CSHQ (0.46, p < 0.0001). AD patients had significantly higher elevated body mass index. Conclusion: Latin-American children with AD have sleep disorders despite treatment, and those with moderate to severe forms had marked changes in CSHQ. (C) 2016 SEICAP. Published by Elsevier Espana, S.L.U. 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

4.1
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