4.7 Article

A Case-Control Study of Sociodemographic and Geographic Characteristics of 335 Children With Eosinophilic Esophagitis

期刊

CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
卷 7, 期 4, 页码 415-419

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2008.10.006

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background & Aims: The epidemiology of pediatric eosinophilic esophagitis (EE) is poorly characterized. In this study, we aimed to determine demographic, socioeconomic, and geographic characteristics of our cohort of EE children. Methods: A case-control design was used to compare 335 EE subjects with control subjects from gastroenterology (GI) and allergy clinics as well as 2000 U.S. census data. Results: EE subjects were significantly different than the greater Philadelphia population as well as control subjects from our gastroenterology and allergy clinics. EE subjects were 83.6% Caucasian, compared with 70.9% of GI control subjects (odds ratio [OR], 2.17; P < .001; confidence interval [CI], 1.52-3.11), 64.9% of allergy control subjects (OR, 2.83; P < .001; CI, 1.99-4.04), and 73.0% of the greater Philadelphia population. EE subjects were 75.8% male, compared with 48.0% of GI control subjects (OR, 3.39; P < .001; CI, 2.47-4.65), 60.4% of allergy control subjects (OR, 1.62; P < .001; CI, 1.19-2.19), and 48.0% of the greater Philadelphia population. We initially demonstrated that EE subjects are more affluent, more educated, and reside more often in suburban areas. However, Caucasian race was a significant confounding variable and accounted for socioeconomic or geographic differences among EE subjects and our control populations with one exception. A significant difference remained between suburban and urban residence in EE and allergy control populations. Conclusions: EE subjects are significantly different than control groups in their demographic characteristics of Caucasian race and male sex. EE subject socioeconomic and geographic characteristics a-re not different than our typical referral patterns to GI clinic when adjusted for race as a confounding factor.

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

4.7
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