4.7 Article

Correlates of kidney stone disease differ by race in a multi-ethnic middle-aged population: The ARIC study

期刊

PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
卷 51, 期 5, 页码 416-420

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2010.08.011

关键词

Kidney stones; Risk factors; Epidemiology

资金

  1. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute [N01-HC-55015, N01-HC-55016, N01-HC-55018, N01-HC-55019, N01-HC-55020, N01-HC-55021, N01-HC-55022]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. To identify correlates of kidney stone disease in white and African American men and women in a population-based longitudinal study starting in four US communities, and to assess differences in correlates across racial groups. Methods. Between 1993 and 1995, 12,161 middle-aged participants of the ARK Study provided information on history of kidney stone disease. Information on incident kidney stone-related hospitalizations was obtained from ICD codes on hospital discharge records. Results. Kidney stone disease was reported by 12.0% of men and 4.8% of women. After multivariable adjustment, prevalent kidney stone disease was significantly (p < 0.05) associated with male gender (PR = 2.50), increased serum triglycerides (PR = 1.07 per SD increase), diabetes (PR = 1.27), gallstone disease (PR = 1.54), white race (PR = 1.67), and region of residence. Male gender (HR = 1.70), diabetes (HR = 1.98), and hypertension (HR = 1.69) were significantly associated (p < 0.05) with incident kidney stone-related hospitalizations (n = 94). Race-stratified analyses showed stronger associations of prevalent kidney stone disease with increased triglycerides, older age, and gallstone disease in African Americans compared to whites, whereas male gender showed stronger association in whites (all p-interaction < 0.05). Conclusion. We identified novel correlates of kidney stone disease (triglycerides, gallstone disease) and risk factor interactions by race (age, male gender, triglycerides, gallstone disease). (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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