4.5 Article

Prevalence of respiratory and atopic disorders in Chinese schoolchildren

期刊

CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL ALLERGY
卷 31, 期 8, 页码 1225-1231

出版社

BLACKWELL SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2222.2001.01140.x

关键词

asthma; atopy; ISAAC; children; Chinese

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Epidemiological surveys have shown that the prevalence of asthma in the Asian population is relatively low. Within the Chinese population, schoolchildren from Hong Kong were found to have the highest rate of asthma. Objective To compare the prevalence of respiratory and atopic disorders, and to assess the role of atopy in the development of asthma, in Chinese schoolchildren from Hong Kong, Beijing and Guangzhou. Methods Community-based random samples of schoolchildren aged 9-11 years from three Chinese cities (Hong Kong, Beijing and Guangzhou) were recruited for study using the International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood (ISAAC) Phase II protocol. Subjects were studied by parental questionnaires (n = 10902), skin-prick tests (n = 3479) and skin examination (n = 3479). Results The prevalence rates of current wheeze, speech limiting wheeze, rhinoconjunctivitis and flexural dermatitis were significantly more common in Hong Kong than in Beijing or Guangzhou. The atopy rate was also higher in Hong Kong (41.2%) than in Beijing (23.9%) or Guangzhou (30.8%). Atopy was strongly correlated with current wheeze (OR 7.74; 95% CI = 5.70-10.51). Subgroup analyses of children from Hong Kong revealed that children born in mainland China who had subsequently migrated to Hong Kong had a significantly lower rate of allergic symptoms and atopy than those children born in Hong Kong. Conclusion Using a standardized written questionnaire along with a skin prick test and skin examination, we confirmed that the prevalence of asthma, allergic diseases and atopy was highest in schoolchildren from Hong Kong. Atopic sensitization is an important factor associated with asthma in Chinese children.

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

4.5
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