4.6 Article

Epidemiological analysis of axillary apocrine bromhidrosis in China: a survey from Chinese higher education students

期刊

FRONTIERS IN MEDICINE
卷 10, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2023.1232744

关键词

axillary apocrine bromhidrosis (AAB); epidemiological survey; Chinese population; prevalence; SCL-90; higher education students

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is a lack of epidemiological data on axillary apocrine bromhidrosis (AAB) in the Chinese population, making it difficult to accurately estimate its prevalence or impact on individuals. This study aimed to estimate the prevalence of AAB in China and to survey and compare the psychological status of individuals with and without AAB.
BackgroundThere are few epidemiological data on axillary apocrine bromhidrosis (AAB) in the Chinese population, making it impossible to accurately estimate its prevalence or impact on individuals.ObjectiveTo estimate the prevalence of AAB in China, and to survey and compare the psychological status of individuals with and without AAB.MethodsStudents in several universities in China were surveyed online for AAB, and the prevalence of AAB was calculated. The Symptom Checklist 90 (SCL-90) was used to evaluate the psychological status.ResultsThe prevalence of AAB in the surveyed students was 7.5% (194/2571). The projected number of Chinese higher education students with AAB was about 3 million. The onset age of AAB was mainly between 11 and 20 years old (79.90%, 155/194). 68.04% (132/194) of individuals with AAB had a positive family history, and 60.30% (117/194) had wet earwax. Individuals with AAB often felt depression, anxiety, loneliness and social alienation, and scored significantly higher on the nine primary psychological symptom dimensions than individuals without AAB.ConclusionAAB affects a small proportion but large numbers of Chinese population. China and the West or East-Asia and the West have different perception, recognition and treatment preferences for AAB.

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