| Literature DB >> 26911588 |
Yi Song1, Jun Ma2, Liu-Bai Li2, Bin Dong3, Zhiqiang Wang4, Anette Agardh5.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We compared the differences in median age at spermarche among 11 ethnic minorities in 2010, estimated the trends regarding age at spermarche in different ethnic minorities from 1995 to 2010, and explored the association of spermarche with body mass index (BMI).Entities:
Keywords: NUTRITION & DIETETICS; PAEDIATRICS
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26911588 PMCID: PMC4769404 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010518
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMJ Open ISSN: 2044-6055 Impact factor: 2.692
Figure 1The locations of 11 ethnic minorities sampled in China.
The distribution and sample size of boys aged 11–18 years among 11 ethnic minorities, from 1995 to 2010
| Ethnic minorities | Source province/region | Number (millions) | Minority populationranking* | 1995 | 2000 | 2005 | 2010 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hui | Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region | 10.59 | 2 | 2401 | 1600 | 1564 | 1744 |
| Zhuang | Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region | 16.93 | 1 | 2391 | 1595 | 1271 | 1449 |
| Yao | Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region | 2.8 | 12 | 1200 | 801 | 484 | 408 |
| Kirghiz | Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region | 0.19 | 31 | 1200 | 400 | – | 963 |
| Dong | Guizhou | 2.88 | 10 | 1200 | 766 | 708 | 741 |
| Hani | Yunnan | 1.66 | 15 | 1200 | – | 863 | 806 |
| Naxi (Nakhi) | Yunnan | 0.33 | 26 | 1189 | – | 799 | 673 |
| Dongxiang | Gansu | 0.62 | 21 | 930 | 1136 | – | 768 |
| Li | Hainan | 1.46 | 16 | 1200 | 784 | 645 | 596 |
| Tu | Qinghai | 0.29 | 28 | 599 | 800 | 557 | 827 |
| Qiang | Sichuan | 0.31 | 27 | 1224 | 710 | – | 921 |
| Total | 14 734 | 8592 | 6891 | 9896 |
*According to the Sixth National Census in 2010.
Age at spermarche (95% CI) of boys aged 11–18 years among 11 ethnic minorities from 1995 to 2010 and compared with Han boys
| Ethnic minorities | 1995 | 2000 | 2005 | 2010 | Difference (1995–2010) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hui | 15.93 (15.78 to 16.08) | 14.91 (14.48 to 15.31) | 14.67 (13.45 to 15.75) | 14.31 (13.88 to 14.72) | −1.62* |
| Zhuang | 15.03 (14.84 to 15.21) | 15.10 (14.96 to 15.23) | 13.34 (11.38 to 14.09) | 12.91 (12.56 to 13.22) | −2.12* |
| Yao | 14.58 (14.38 to 14.79) | 15.46 (15.03 to 15.90) | – | 14.60 (14.29 to 14.84) | 0.02 |
| Kirghiz | 15.10 (14.86 to 15.34) | 14.85 (14.55 to 15.22) | – | 13.17 (12.49 to 13.75) | −1.93* |
| Dong | 14.81 (14.66 to 14.96) | 15.45 (15.20 to 15.74) | 14.74 (14.46 to 15.01) | 14.73 (14.02 to 15.41) | −0.08 |
| Hani | 14.37 (14.25 to 14.49) | – | 14.20 (13.84 to 14.54) | 13.76 (13.63 to 13.89) | −0.61* |
| Naxi (Nakhi) | 14.93 (14.72 to 15.14) | – | 13.36 (13.19 to 13.53) | 14.36 (13.64 to 14.95) | −0.57* |
| Dongxiang | 14.39 (14.12 to 14.65) | 15.98 (15.60 to 16.38) | – | 13.96 (11.71 to 15.46) | −0.43* |
| Li | 14.11 (13.88 to 14.34) | 14.05 (13.00 to 15.07) | 13.50 (12.62 to 14.11) | 13.66 (13.01 to 14.14) | −0.45* |
| Tu | 15.37 (15.13 to 15.62) | 16.23 (15.62 to 16.88) | 15.19 (15.02 to 15.37) | 14.35 (13.91 to 14.77) | −1.02* |
| Qiang | 15.56 (15.32 to 15.80) | 14.65 (14.40 to 14.92) | – | 12.03 (11.20 to 12.55) | −3.53* |
| Han | 14.57 (14.35 to 14.78) | 14.33 (14.07 to 14.58) | 14.10 (13.79 to 14.39) | 14.03 (13.72 to 14.32) | −0.54† |
*Significant difference between 1995 and 2010 (p<0.01).
†According to reference 7.
Figure 2The clustering pattern of age at spermache among boys aged 11–18 years from 11 ethnic minorities.
Figure 3The secular trends regarding age at spermache of boys aged 11–18 years among 11 ethnic minorities from 1995 to 2010.
Logistic regression models predicting spermarcheal status from BMI, geographic regions, age and ethnic minorities in 2010 CNSSCH (OR (95% CI))
| Variable | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BMI | 1.49 (1.45 to 1.52) | 1.49 (1.45 to 1.52) | 1.09 (1.06 to 1.12) | 1.13 (1.10 to 1.16) |
| Regions | NA | |||
| North China | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
| South China | 1.68 (1.54 to 1.85) | 1.84 (1.63 to 2.08) | ||
| Age (years) | 2.85 (2.73 to 2.97) | 3.40 (3.23 to 3.58) | ||
| Ethnic minorities | ||||
| Hui | 1.00 | |||
| Zhuang | 7.92 (6.17 to 10.17) | |||
| Yao | 0.64 (0.49 to 0.85) | |||
| Kirghiz | 0.92 (0.64 to 1.32) | |||
| Dong | 2.34 (1.75 to 3.12) | |||
| Hani | 3.40 (2.51 to 4.61) | |||
| Naxi (Nakhi) | 1.70 (1.29 to 2.52) | |||
| Dongxiang | 0.90 (0.68 to 1.20) | |||
| Li | 6.24 (4.77 to 8.17) | |||
| Tu | 1.00 (0.76 to 1.31) | |||
| Qiang | 18.62 (13.92 to 24.91) |
Stepwise logistic regression analyses to determine the association between spermarcheal status and BMI in the first step (model 1); regions in the second step (model 2); age in the third step (model 3); and the association between spermarcheal status and BMI, age and ethnic minorities in the model 4. BMI, body mass index; NA, not applicable.