International journal of pediatric endocrinology · 2014
Eating behaviors in obese children with pseudohypoparathyroidism type 1a: a cross-sectional study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wang Lulu, Shoemaker Ashley H
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Children with pseudohypoparathyroidism type 1a (PHP-1a) develop early-onset obesity. These children have decreased resting energy expenditure but it is unknown if hyperphagia contributes to their obesity.
METHODS: We conducted a survey assessment of patients 2 to 12 years old with PHP-1a and matched controls using the Hyperphagia Questionnaire (HQ) and Children's Eating Behavior Questionnaire (CEBQ). Results of the PHP-1a group were also compared with an obese control group and normal weight sibling group.
RESULTS: We enrolled 10 patients with PHP-1a and 9 matched controls. There was not a significant difference between the PHP-1a group and matched controls for total HQ score (p = 0.72), Behavior (p = 0.91), Drive (p = 0.48) or Severity (p = 0.73) subset scores. There was also no difference between the PHP-1a group and matched controls on the CEBQ. In a secondary analysis, the PHP-1a group was compared with obese controls (n = 30) and normal weight siblings (n = 6). Caregivers reported an increased interest in food before age 2 years in 6 of 10 PHP-1a patients (60%), 9 of 30 obese controls (30%) and none of the siblings (p = 0.04). The sibling group had a significantly lower Positive Eating Behavior score than the PHP-1a group (2.6 [2.4, 2.9] vs. 3.5 [3.1, 4.0], p < 0.01) and obese controls (2.6 [2.4, 2.9] vs. 3.4 [2.6, 3.8], p = 0.04), but there was not a significant difference between the PHP-1a and obese controls (p = 0.35). The sibling group had a lower Desire to Drink score than both the PHP-1a group (1.8 [1.6, 2.7] vs. 4.3 [3.3, 5.0], p < 0.01) and obese controls (1.8 [1.6, 2.7] vs. 3.3 [3.0, 4.0], p < 0.01) but there was not a significant difference between the PHP-1a and obese control Desire to Drink scores (p = 0.11).
CONCLUSIONS: Patients with PHP-1a demonstrate hyperphagic symptoms similar to matched obese controls.
METHODS: We conducted a survey assessment of patients 2 to 12 years old with PHP-1a and matched controls using the Hyperphagia Questionnaire (HQ) and Children's Eating Behavior Questionnaire (CEBQ). Results of the PHP-1a group were also compared with an obese control group and normal weight sibling group.
RESULTS: We enrolled 10 patients with PHP-1a and 9 matched controls. There was not a significant difference between the PHP-1a group and matched controls for total HQ score (p = 0.72), Behavior (p = 0.91), Drive (p = 0.48) or Severity (p = 0.73) subset scores. There was also no difference between the PHP-1a group and matched controls on the CEBQ. In a secondary analysis, the PHP-1a group was compared with obese controls (n = 30) and normal weight siblings (n = 6). Caregivers reported an increased interest in food before age 2 years in 6 of 10 PHP-1a patients (60%), 9 of 30 obese controls (30%) and none of the siblings (p = 0.04). The sibling group had a significantly lower Positive Eating Behavior score than the PHP-1a group (2.6 [2.4, 2.9] vs. 3.5 [3.1, 4.0], p < 0.01) and obese controls (2.6 [2.4, 2.9] vs. 3.4 [2.6, 3.8], p = 0.04), but there was not a significant difference between the PHP-1a and obese controls (p = 0.35). The sibling group had a lower Desire to Drink score than both the PHP-1a group (1.8 [1.6, 2.7] vs. 4.3 [3.3, 5.0], p < 0.01) and obese controls (1.8 [1.6, 2.7] vs. 3.3 [3.0, 4.0], p < 0.01) but there was not a significant difference between the PHP-1a and obese control Desire to Drink scores (p = 0.11).
CONCLUSIONS: Patients with PHP-1a demonstrate hyperphagic symptoms similar to matched obese controls.