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

N-6 and n-3 fatty acid cholesteryl esters in relation to incident stroke in a Dutch adult population: a nested case-control study.



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

Primary Publication Information
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
TitleData
Title N-6 and n-3 fatty acid cholesteryl esters in relation to incident stroke in a Dutch adult population: a nested case-control study.
Author De Goede J., Verschuren WM., Boer JM., Kromhout D., Geleijnse JM.
Country Division of Human Nutrition, Wageningen University, PO Box 8129, 6700 EV Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Year 2013
Numbers Pubmed ID: 22633188

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) MORGEN
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Country in which study conducted (where subjects live) Netherlands
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Funding source Authors report industry affiliation
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Eligibility Criteria: 20-65 y with no history of MI or stroke
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Study Population Primary Prevention, Healthy
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Comment about study design: N=179 cases, N=179 control matched on age, gender, and enrollment date
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Conflict of interest No conflict of interest (explicitly stated)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Does the study report a subgroup or predictor (regression) analysis for an outcome of interest? No
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
What type(s) of analysis is/are reported? Baseline biomarker level vs. outcomes
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Continuous baseline measure
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Study start date(s) 1993
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Male, percent 53
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Race nd
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Comments about quantiles. no quantiles
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Baseline characteristics, continuous Cases=50.1, Controls=50.0
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
skip
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Cases=9.5, Controls=9.5
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Cases=132.1, Controls=126.1
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
skip
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Cases=20.2, Controls=16.1
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Cases=82.9, Controls=80.9
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
skip
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Cases=12.0, Controls=11.3
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
nd
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Cases=5.7, Controls=5.6
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
mmol/L
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Cases=1.1, Controls=1.1
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
nd
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Cases=1.3, Controls=1.3
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
mmol/L
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Cases=0.4, Controls=0.3
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
nd
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Cases=25.8, Controls=25.9
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
skip
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Cases=4.1, Controls=4.3
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
nd
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Baseline Diseases/Conditions Cases=5.6, Controls=0.6
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Cases=42.1, controls=30.7
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
n3 Source Diet (Total)
  • 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? 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)? Not Applicable measured from plasma
  • 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
No quality rating data was found.