4.6 Article

Questionnaire Predictors of Atopy in a US Population Sample: Findings From the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2005-2006

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 173, 期 5, 页码 544-552

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwq392

关键词

hypersensitivity; immunoglobulin E; questionnaires; sensitivity and specificity

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences [Z01 ES025041]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Allergic conditions and biochemical measures are both used to characterize atopy. To assess questionnaires' ability to predict biochemical measures of atopy, the authors used data on 5 allergic conditions (allergy, hay fever, eczema, rhinitis, and itchy rash) and serum-specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) levels from the 2005-2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Atopy was defined as 1 or more positive specific IgEs (>= 0.35 kU/L). Questionnaire responses were assessed for sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for atopy. In this population-based US sample, 44% of participants were specific IgE-positive and 53% reported at least 1 allergic condition. Discordance between atopy and allergic conditions was considerable; 37% of persons with atopy reported no allergic condition, and 48% of persons who reported an allergic condition were not atopic. Thus, no combination of self-reported allergic conditions achieved both high sensitivity and high specificity for IgE. The positive predictive value of reported allergic conditions for atopy ranged from 50% for eczema to 72% for hay fever, while the negative predictive value ranged from 57% for eczema to 65% for any condition. Given the high proportion of asymptomatic participants who were specific IgE-positive and persons who reported allergic conditions but were specific IgE-negative, it is unlikely that questionnaires will ever capture the same participants as those found to be atopic by biochemical measures.

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