4.6 Article

Age, Gender, and Race Effects on Cystatin C Levels in US Adolescents

期刊

出版社

AMER SOC NEPHROLOGY
DOI: 10.2215/CJN.00840208

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) [UO1 DK 053869, UO1 DK 067651, UO1 DK 35073]
  2. German Research Foundation fellowship
  3. National Institutes of Health (NIH)/NIDDK [KO1 DK076595, UO1 DK66116, UO1 DK66174]
  4. NIH/NCRR [MO1 RR000052]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and objectives: The objective of this study was to describe the normal range of serum cystatin C and identify factors associated with variability in serum cystatin C contrasting with factors that are known to influence creatinine levels in the general US adolescent population. Design, setting, participants, & measurements: Serum cystatin C and creatinine were measured in 719 participants aged 12 to 19 yr in the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, a national cross-sectional survey conducted in 1988 through 1994. We calculated gender- and race/ethnicity-specific cystatin C and creatinine ranges and conducted multivariable linear regression analyses to assess factors that contribute to variability in cystatin C and creatinine levels. Results: Overall, the mean serum cystatin C level was 0.84 mg/L and was higher in male than female individuals and higher in non-Hispanic white versus non-Hispanic black and Mexican American individuals. The mean serum creatinine was 0.71 mg/dl and was higher in male than in female individuals but lower in non-Hispanic white and Mexican American compared with non-Hispanic black individuals. Unlike creatinine, which increases with age from 12 to 19 yr, cystatin C levels decrease, particularly in female individuals. After adjustment for age, gender, and race/ethnicity, uric acid and blood urea nitrogen were significantly associated with cystatin C levels. Conclusions: Serum cystatin C is significantly related to gender, age, race/ethnicity, uric acid, and blood urea nitrogen in adolescents.

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