4.5 Article

Serum level of vitamin D and trace elements in children with recurrent wheezing: a cross-sectional study

期刊

BMC PEDIATRICS
卷 14, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2431-14-270

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: We aimed to show the relationship between recurrence of wheezing and serum levels of vitamin D, zinc, and copper in wheezy children compared with a healthy group. Methods: In this cross sectional study, seventy-three children with wheezing and seventy-five controls were included without a follow-up period. The clinical characteristics of the children were assessed, the asthma predictive index and temporal pattern of wheeze were determined. The serum levels of vitamin D, zinc, and copper were measured. Pearson correlation analysis was used to evaluate the relationship between homogeneously distributed variables. Results: Thirty-two of the seventy-three children (43.8%) had more than three wheezing attacks (recurrent wheezing). The Asthma Predictive Index index was positive in 26 patients (35.6%). When classified to temporal pattern of wheeze, fifty-three of the study group (72.6%) had episodic wheezing and the remainder (27.4%) was classified as multiple-trigger wheezing. We found no overall significant difference between the study and control group in terms of vitamin D and trace elements. The vitamin D and zinc levels were significantly lower and serum copper and copper/zinc ratio was significantly higher in patients with recurrent wheezing (p = 0.03, p < 0.01, p = 0.013, p < 0.01, respectively) positive Asthma Predictive Index and multiple-trigger temporal pattern of wheeze compared with patients with non-recurrent wheezing, negative Asthma Predictive Index and episodic temporal pattern of wheeze. Conclusion: It may be postulated that for the determination of asthma risk in patients with recurrent wheezing, the serum level of vitamin D, copper and zinc can be used as a routine biomarker alongside the Asthma Predictive Index and temporal pattern of wheeze.

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