Wu M L, Whittemore A S, Jung D L
Department of Health Research and Policy, Stanford University School of Medicine, CA 94305-5092.
Am J Epidemiol. 1988 Nov;128(5):1137-45. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a115056.
Inconsistent results among case-control studies of diet and cancer may reflect discrepancies between dietary reports based on current habits and actual intakes from the time of cancer initiation in the distant past. To examine the validity of reported past and current diet as measures of past diet, the authors queried 873 men and women in three northern California communities about their diet 11 years earlier in 1972 and about their current diet in 1983. They used the same dietary history questionnaire that had been administered to the subjects in 1972. Retrospectively recalled and currently reported nutrient intakes and measures of body size were compared with original reports obtained in 1972. Mean values of recalled nutrient intakes agreed with mean values of intakes reported in 1972. The agreement held for each sex, community, and nutrient examined. By contrast, mean values of current intakes were smaller than those reported in 1972. Correlation coefficients showed closer agreement between recalled and original intakes than between current and original intakes. Nevertheless, recalled intakes correlated more closely with current intakes than with original ones. Analysis of variance was used to partition the variation in recalled and original intakes into components due to interpersonal variation in true intakes, errors in recall, and residual reporting error. Interpersonal variation accounted for only 20-40% of the variation in dietary intakes, with most of the balance due to reporting error. For comparison, interpersonal variation accounted for 70-85% of the variance of recalled and original reports of body size. These results suggest that inconsistencies among case-control studies of diet may be due to large random measurement errors in individual dietary intakes. The apparent validity and reproducibility of mean dietary measures, averaged over large populations, suggests the need for new designs for studies of diet and disease.
饮食与癌症病例对照研究结果不一致,可能反映了基于当前饮食习惯的饮食报告与癌症起始于遥远过去时的实际摄入量之间的差异。为了检验所报告的过去和当前饮食作为过去饮食衡量指标的有效性,作者对北加利福尼亚三个社区的873名男性和女性进行了询问,了解他们1972年(11年前)的饮食情况以及1983年的当前饮食情况。他们使用了1972年对这些受试者进行调查时所用的相同饮食史问卷。将回顾性回忆和当前报告的营养摄入量及身体尺寸测量值与1972年获得的原始报告进行比较。回忆的营养摄入量平均值与1972年报告的摄入量平均值相符。这种相符在每个性别、社区以及所研究的每种营养素中都成立。相比之下,当前摄入量的平均值低于1972年报告的数值。相关系数表明,回忆摄入量与原始摄入量之间的一致性比当前摄入量与原始摄入量之间的一致性更紧密。然而,回忆摄入量与当前摄入量的相关性比与原始摄入量的相关性更紧密。方差分析用于将回忆摄入量和原始摄入量的变化分解为由于真实摄入量的人际差异、回忆误差和残余报告误差导致的成分。人际差异仅占饮食摄入量变化的20% - 40%,其余大部分归因于报告误差。作为比较,人际差异占身体尺寸回忆报告和原始报告方差的70% - 85%。这些结果表明,饮食病例对照研究结果不一致可能是由于个体饮食摄入量存在较大的随机测量误差。在大量人群中平均得到的平均饮食测量值的明显有效性和可重复性表明,需要对饮食与疾病研究采用新的设计。