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

Fish and omega-3 fatty acid intake and risk of coronary heart disease in women.



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

Primary Publication Information
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
TitleData
Title Fish and omega-3 fatty acid intake and risk of coronary heart disease in women.
Author Hu FB., Bronner L., Willett WC., Stampfer MJ., Rexrode KM., Albert CM., Hunter D., Manson JE.
Country Department of Nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health, 665 Huntington Ave, Boston, MA 02115, USA. Frank.hu@channing.harvard.edu
Year 2002
Numbers Pubmed ID: 11939867
16 (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: Prospective, longitudinal study of intake (eg, FFQ, biomarker)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
What is the name of this study? (e.g. DART, Physician's Health Study) Nurses' Health Study (NHS)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Country in which study conducted (where subjects live) US
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Funding source No industry relationship reported (funding or affiliations reported)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Eligibility Criteria: registered female nurses a part of the Nurses' Health Study and were between the age of 34-59, and free of cardiovascular disease and cancer at baseline in 1980
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Study Population Primary Prevention, Healthy
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Conflict of interest No Data regarding conflict of interest
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Does the study report a subgroup or predictor (regression) analysis for an outcome of interest? ... Which subgroups/predictors? Yes ... aspirin use, prior history of CVD
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Study start date(s) 1980
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Male, percent 0%
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Race 98
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Dropouts, withdrawals, etc. nd
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Baseline characteristics, continuous (34,59)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
nd
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
nd
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
nd
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
nd
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
nd
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
nd
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
nd
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
nd
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
nd
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Baseline Diseases/Conditions nd
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
nd
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
nd
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
nd
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
nd
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
nd
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
nd
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
nd
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
nd
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
nd
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
nd
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
nd
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
nd
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
nd
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
n3 Source Fish diet
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Plant diet (ALA)
  • 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 (eg, lipids, BP, DM)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Outcome assessment (ALL STUDIES): Were OUTCOME ASSESSORS adequately BLINDED? HIGH there was no blinding
  • 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)? No No data on instrument or method used to measure n-3 FA intake
  • 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)? Yes
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Additional Bias: Bias due to problems not covered elsewhere in the table. No
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Do any specific outcomes have a high risk of bias (different than others)? If so, describe in Notes. No
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Quality Rating
Guideline Used Overall Rating