Suppr超能文献

地中海饮食模式依从性指数的一致性:MCC-Spain 研究。

Agreement among Mediterranean Diet Pattern Adherence Indexes: MCC-Spain Study.

机构信息

Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, University of Granada, 18071 Granada, Spain.

Consortium for Biomedical Research in Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP), 28029 Madrid, Spain.

出版信息

Nutrients. 2019 Feb 26;11(3):488. doi: 10.3390/nu11030488.

Abstract

There are many different methods used to measure the degree of adherence to a Mediterranean diet (MD), limiting comparison and interpretation of their results. The concordance between different methodologies has been questioned and their evaluation recommended. The aim of this study was to evaluate the agreement among five indexes that measure adherence to a Mediterranean dietary pattern. The study population included healthy adults selected in the Multi-Case Control Spain (MCC-Spain) study recruited in 12 provinces. A total of 3640 controls were matched to cases by age and sex. To reach the aim, the following scores of adherence to a Mediterranean dietary pattern were calculated: Mediterranean diet score (MDS), alternative Mediterranean diet (aMED), relative Mediterranean diet (rMED), dietary score (DS) and literature-based adherence score (LBAS). The relative frequency of subjects with a high level of adherence to a MD varied from 22% (aMED index) to 37.2% (DS index). Similarly, a high variability was observed for the prevalence of a low level of MD: from 24% (rMED) to 38.4% (aMED). The correlation among MDS, aMED and rMED indexes was moderate, except for MDS and aMED with a high coefficient of correlation 0.75 (95% CI 0.74⁻0.77). The Cohen's Kappa coefficient among indexes showed a moderate⁻fair concordance, except for MDS and aMED with a 0.56 (95% CI 0.55⁻0.59) and 0.67 (95% CI 0.66⁻0.68) using linear and quadratic weighting, respectively. The existing MD adherence indexes measured the same, although they were based on different constructing algorithms and varied in the food groups included, leading to a different classification of subjects. Therefore, concordance between these indexes was moderate or low.

摘要

有许多不同的方法用于衡量对地中海饮食(MD)的依从程度,这限制了对其结果的比较和解释。不同方法之间的一致性已经受到质疑,并建议对其进行评估。本研究的目的是评估五种衡量地中海饮食模式依从性的指数之间的一致性。研究人群包括在西班牙多病例对照研究(MCC-Spain)中选择的健康成年人,该研究在 12 个省份进行。共有 3640 名对照与病例按年龄和性别匹配。为了达到目的,计算了以下地中海饮食模式依从性评分:地中海饮食评分(MDS)、替代地中海饮食(aMED)、相对地中海饮食(rMED)、饮食评分(DS)和基于文献的依从性评分(LBAS)。具有高 MD 依从性的受试者的相对频率从 22%(aMED 指数)到 37.2%(DS 指数)不等。同样,MD 低水平的患病率也存在很大差异:从 24%(rMED)到 38.4%(aMED)。MDS、aMED 和 rMED 指数之间的相关性为中度,除了 MDS 和 aMED 之间具有高度相关性 0.75(95%置信区间 0.74⁻0.77)。指数之间的 Cohen's Kappa 系数显示中度至良好的一致性,除了 MDS 和 aMED,分别为 0.56(95%置信区间 0.55⁻0.59)和 0.67(95%置信区间 0.66⁻0.68),使用线性和二次加权。现有的 MD 依从性指数测量的是相同的,尽管它们基于不同的构建算法,并且所包含的食物组不同,导致对受试者的不同分类。因此,这些指数之间的一致性为中度或低度。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/f03a/6471750/9ae4bc835138/nutrients-11-00488-g001.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验