Zhonghua er bi yan hou tou jing wai ke za zhi = Chinese journal of otorhinolaryngology head and neck surgery · 2010
[Clinical characteristics in patients with non-allergic rhinitis and allergic rhinitis: preliminary analysis].
Сравнительное исследованиеАннотация на английскомСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Meng Cui-da, Li Lin, Jiang Xiao-dan, Dong Zhen, Zhu Dong-dong
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare and analyze the clinical characteristics in patients with hyperreactive non-allergic rhinitis (HNAR) and allergic rhinitis (AR).
METHODS: A questionnaire survey on AR and HNAR patients between January and August 2009 was conducted. The clinical data of 298 AR patients and 100 HNAR patients were analyzed, including gender, age distribution, seasonal, clinical symptom and induced factors.
RESULTS: The number of male patients was more than female in AR, while in NAR, the number of female patients was more than male (χ(2) = 6.415, P = 0.01). The highest morbidity age in AR was teenagers, aged between 10 - 19 (χ(2) = 12.772, P = 0.00), while in HNAR, the highest morbidity age was middle-aged and youth, aged between 30 - 39 (χ(2) = 51.533, P = 0.00). The main onset seasons in AR was autumn, while there was no seasonal diversity in HNAR. The main allergen in AR was mugwort and ragweed, consistent with the vegetative cover characteristic in Jilin province. The main classification of AR was moderate-severe persistent (χ(2) = 123.991, P = 0.00), while the main classification of HNAR was moderate-severe intermittent (χ(2) = 97.420, P = 0.00). The clinical symptoms were significantly different between AR and HNAR except rhinocnesmus (all P < 0.05). There was consistency about non-specificity induced factors in AR and HNAR (all P > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: There were significant differences between AR and HNAR in sex, age, classification and seasons. The severity of clinical symptoms in AR was higher than that in HNAR except sneezing and gasping. There was consistency about induced factors in AR and HNAR.
METHODS: A questionnaire survey on AR and HNAR patients between January and August 2009 was conducted. The clinical data of 298 AR patients and 100 HNAR patients were analyzed, including gender, age distribution, seasonal, clinical symptom and induced factors.
RESULTS: The number of male patients was more than female in AR, while in NAR, the number of female patients was more than male (χ(2) = 6.415, P = 0.01). The highest morbidity age in AR was teenagers, aged between 10 - 19 (χ(2) = 12.772, P = 0.00), while in HNAR, the highest morbidity age was middle-aged and youth, aged between 30 - 39 (χ(2) = 51.533, P = 0.00). The main onset seasons in AR was autumn, while there was no seasonal diversity in HNAR. The main allergen in AR was mugwort and ragweed, consistent with the vegetative cover characteristic in Jilin province. The main classification of AR was moderate-severe persistent (χ(2) = 123.991, P = 0.00), while the main classification of HNAR was moderate-severe intermittent (χ(2) = 97.420, P = 0.00). The clinical symptoms were significantly different between AR and HNAR except rhinocnesmus (all P < 0.05). There was consistency about non-specificity induced factors in AR and HNAR (all P > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: There were significant differences between AR and HNAR in sex, age, classification and seasons. The severity of clinical symptoms in AR was higher than that in HNAR except sneezing and gasping. There was consistency about induced factors in AR and HNAR.