4.1 Article

Prevalence of self-reported allergic and non-allergic rhinitis symptoms in Stockholm: Relation to age, gender, olfactory sense and smoking

期刊

ACTA OTO-LARYNGOLOGICA
卷 123, 期 1, 页码 75-80

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/0036554021000028071

关键词

adults; age; allergic rhinitis symptoms; gender; non-allergic nasal symptoms; olfaction; prevalence; questionnaire survey; self-report; smoking

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective-To estimate the prevalence of isolated self-reported allergic and non-allergic rhinitis symptoms in an adult population and to explore the relations to age, gender, olfaction and smoking habits. Material and methods-Self-judged health and environmental exposures were investigated by means of a questionnaire survey administered to a stratified random sample of 15,000 adults in Stockholm County. Results-A total of 10,670 individuals were included in the analysis, corresponding to a response rate of 73%. The results revealed a high prevalence of self-reported non-allergic rhinitis, 19%, almost as high as the prevalence of self-reported allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, 24%. In contrast to current clinical opinion, we did not find a significant increase in the prevalence of non-allergic symptoms with increased age. There were no statistically significant gender differences in the prevalence of either allergic or non-allergic symptoms. A reduced sense of smell was twice Lis common in the non-allergic group, 23%, as in the healthy population. The prevalence of rhinitis symptoms differed according to smoking habits. Conclusion-Both self-reported allergic rhinitis symptoms and non-allergic nasal symptoms are frequent in the population sample. Self-reported non-allergic nasal symptoms seem to occur independent of age and reduced olfactory sense is a common complaint among these subjects. The prevalence of self-reported allergic and non-allergic nasal symptoms did not differ much between men and women or between individuals with different smoking habits.

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

4.1
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