4.3 Article

Cold sensitivity and associated factors: a nested case-control study performed in Northern Sweden

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00420-018-1327-2

关键词

Cold exposure; Sweden; Hand; Frostbite; Cold sensitivity

资金

  1. Umea University
  2. Vasterbotten County Council
  3. Vasterbotten County Council [VLL-646641]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PurposeTo identify factors associated with the reporting of cold sensitivity, by comparing cases to controls with regard to anthropometry, previous illnesses and injuries, as well as external exposures such as hand-arm vibration (HAV) and ambient cold.MethodsThrough a questionnaire responded to by the general population, ages 18-70, living in Northern Sweden (N=12,627), cold sensitivity cases (N=502) and matched controls (N=1004) were identified, and asked to respond to a second questionnaire focusing on different aspects of cold sensitivity as well as individual and external exposure factors suggested to be related to the condition. Conditional logistic regression analyses were performed to determine statistical significance.ResultsIn total, 997 out of 1506 study subjects answered the second questionnaire, yielding a response rate of 81.7%. In the multiple conditional logistic regression model, identified associated factors among cold sensitive cases were: frostbite affecting the hands (OR 10.3, 95% CI 5.5-19.3); rheumatic disease (OR 3.1, 95% CI 1.7-5.7); upper extremity nerve injury (OR 2.0, 95% CI 1.3-3.0); migraines (OR 2.4, 95% CI 1.3-4.3); and vascular disease (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.2-2.9). A body mass index25 was inversely related to reporting of cold sensitivity (0.4, 95% CI 0.3-0.6).ConclusionsCold sensitivity was associated with both individual and external exposure factors. Being overweight was associated with a lower occurrence of cold sensitivity; and among the acquired conditions, both cold injuries, rheumatic diseases, nerve injuries, migraines and vascular diseases were associated with the reporting of cold sensitivity.

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