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

Dietary α-linolenic acid, linoleic acid, and n-3 long-chain PUFA and risk of ischemic heart disease.



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

Primary Publication Information
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
TitleData
Title Dietary α-linolenic acid, linoleic acid, and n-3 long-chain PUFA and risk of ischemic heart disease.
Author Vedtofte MS., Jakobsen MU., Lauritzen L., Heitmann BL.
Country Research Unit for Dietary Studies at the Institute of Preventive Medicine, Copenhagen, Denmark. msf@ipm.regionh.dk
Year 2011
Numbers Pubmed ID: 21865326

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) Glostrup Population Studies
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Country in which study conducted (where subjects live) Denmark
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Funding source No Data on funding or affiliations
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Eligibility Criteria: Four of the Glostrup cohorts were included in the present project: 1) the 1914 cohort: randomly sampled subjects born in 1914 and examined in 1974 or 1984; 2) the 1936 cohort: randomly sampled subjects born in 1936 and examined in 1976, 1981, and 1987; 3) the MONICA-I cohort: subjects randomly sampled from births in 1922, 1932, 1942, and 1952 and examined in 1982; and 4) the MONICA-III cohort: subjects randomly sampled from births in 1932, 1942, 1952, and 1962 and examined in 1991. Those who had been given a previous diagnosis of IHD (n = 38), those who reported that they had diabetes mellitus (n = 79), and those with missing values in the confounding variables (n = 33) were excluded.
  • 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? No
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
What type(s) of analysis is/are reported? Baseline intake (eg, from FFQ) vs. outcomes
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Study start date(s) 1964
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Male, percent 49.9
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Race nd
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Dropouts, withdrawals, etc. 0
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Baseline characteristics, continuous 50.6
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
30.8, 60.8
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
123
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
104, 152
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
23.9
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
19.7, 29.6
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Baseline Diseases/Conditions 20.5
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Family history of AMI
  • 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
  • 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 Measured n-3 FA from ONLY diet
  • 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)? Low
  • 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.