This is the old version of SRDR. The next, SRDRplus is available! Registration of your SRDRPlus account is free and approval is automatic. Click Here to register an SRDRPlus account.

Advanced Search

Study Preview



Study Title and Description

Plasma phospholipid fatty acid concentration and incident coronary heart disease in men and women: the EPIC-Norfolk prospective study.



Key Questions Addressed
2 Observational studies (longitudinal; quantile or continuous analysis)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Primary Publication Information
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
TitleData
Title Plasma phospholipid fatty acid concentration and incident coronary heart disease in men and women: the EPIC-Norfolk prospective study.
Author Khaw KT., Friesen MD., Riboli E., Luben R., Wareham N.
Country Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, United Kingdom. kk101@medschl.cam.ac.uk
Year 2012
Numbers Pubmed ID: 22802735
6977 (internal)

Secondary Publication Information
There are currently no secondary publications defined for this study.


Extraction Form: Observational Studies
Design Details
Question... Follow Up Answer Follow-up Answer
Study Design Observational: Nested Case Control
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
What is the name of this study? (e.g. DART, Physician's Health Study) European Prospective Investigation into Cancer (EPIC) Norfolk
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Country in which study conducted (where subjects live) UK
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Funding source No industry relationship reported (funding or affiliations reported)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Eligibility Criteria: men and women aged 40– 79 years in Norfolk, UK
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Study Population Primary Prevention, Healthy
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Conflict of interest No conflict of interest (explicitly stated)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
What type(s) of analysis is/are reported? Baseline biomarker level vs. outcomes
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Study start date(s) 1993
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Male, percent 45.6
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Race nd
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Dropouts, withdrawals, etc. n/a
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Comments about quantiles. baseline data from controls
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Baseline characteristics, continuous 60 (men) 59.4 (women)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
8 (men) 8.5 (women)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
136.1 (men) 132.6 (women)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
16.4 (men) 18.0 (women)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
83.7 (men) 80 (women)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
10.6 (men) 10.7 (women)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
6.03 (men) 6.35 (women)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
mmol/L
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
1.05 (men) 1.2 (women)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
3.92 (men) 4.03 (women)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
mmol/L
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
0.95 (men) 1.06 (women)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
1.25 (men) 1.58 (women)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
mmol/L
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
0.33 (men) 0.42 (women)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
2.01 (men) 1.64 (women)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
mmol/L
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
1.15 (men) 1.07 (women)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
26.3 (men) 25.9 (women)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
3.1 (men) 3.9 (women)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Baseline Diseases/Conditions 1.7
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
history of diabetes
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
n3 Source No Data / Unclear
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |




Results & Comparisons

No Results found.

Quality Dimensions
Dimension Value Notes Comments
Selection bias (NOT NESTED CASE CONTROL): Is there clear demonstration that the outcome of interest was not present at the start of the study (baseline)? Yes
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Comparability/Adjustment (ALL OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES): Were the analyses adjusted for confounders (or other factors)? Yes Including diet and CVD risk factors
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Outcome assessment (ALL STUDIES): Were OUTCOME ASSESSORS adequately BLINDED? LOW
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) due to amount, nature or handling of incomplete outcome data (ALL STUDIES) LOW
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Nutrition, FFQ Baseline intake: Was the dietary assessment instrument (eg, FFQ) described to have measured n-3 FA (ALL STUDIES WITH FFQ)? Yes biomarker study
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Nutrition, Baseline data: Were the ranges or distributions of the nutrient exposures adequately reported (ie, quantile means/medians SD and/or ranges) (ALL OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES)? No
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Additional Bias: Bias due to problems not covered elsewhere in the table.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Do any specific outcomes have a high risk of bias (different than others)? If so, describe in Notes.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Quality Rating
No quality rating data was found.