3.8 Article

Prevalence of the Metabolic Syndrome in Korean Children and Adolescents according to the International Diabetes Federation Definition in Children and Adolescents

期刊

KOREAN JOURNAL OF FAMILY MEDICINE
卷 30, 期 4, 页码 261-268

出版社

KOREAN ACAD FAMILY MEDICINE
DOI: 10.4082/kjfm.2009.30.4.261

关键词

Metabolic Syndrome; Abdominal Obesity; Child; Adolescent; Prevalence

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Many children and adolescents are exposed to the risk of cardiovascular diseases because of increase in obesity and obesity-related metabolic derangements in children and adolescents. The diagnosis of the metabolic syndrome is useful to identify these children with high cardiovascular risk. In 2007, the International Diabetes Federation (IDF) presented a new definition of the metabolic syndrome for children and adolescents. The aim of this study was to estimate the prevalence of the metabolic syndrome using the IDF pediatric definition in Korean children and adolescents. Methods: We used data from 931 participants aged 10-19 years in the Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2005. The metabolic syndrome was diagnosed by the new IDF pediatric definition. Results: The prevalence of the metabolic syndrome in Korean children and adolescents aged 10-19 years was 2.0 +/- 0.5% (boys: 3.1 +/- 0.8%, girls: 0.8 +/- 0.4%). Approximately 95% of children and adolescents with the metabolic syndrome was classified with obesity and none of the normal-weighted participants were diagnosed with the metabolic syndrome. Conclusion: The prevalence of the metabolic syndrome in Korean children and adolescents was 2.0 +/- 0.5%. It is expected that the new IDF pediatric definition will help to detect children with high cardiovascular risk early and to manage them properly. However, whether the IDF pediatric defi nition of the metabolic syndrome and cut-off points of its components are appropriate for Korean children and adolescents should be answered through future research.

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

3.8
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