4.7 Article

Adherence to the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet and risk of total and cause-specific mortality: results from the Golestan Cohort Study

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 48, 期 6, 页码 1824-1838

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyz079

关键词

Diet; dietary approaches to stop hypertension; mortality; cancer; cardiovascular disease; DASH

资金

  1. Digestive Disease Research Center (DDRC)
  2. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [ZIACP000185] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To evaluate the association between adherence to the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet and overall and cause-specific mortality in the Golestan Cohort Study (GCS). Methods: A total of 50 045 participants aged 40 years or older were recruited from Golestan Province, Iran, from 2004 to 2008 and followed for a mean of 10.64 years. The DASH diet score was calculated for each individual based on food groups. The primary outcome measure was death from any cause. Results: During 517 326 person-years of follow-up, 6763 deaths were reported. After adjustment for potential confounders, DASH diet score was inversely associated with risk of death from all causes and cancers [hazard ratio (HR): 0.86; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.75, 0.98; and HR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.47, 0.90, respectively]. A higher DASH diet score was associated with lower risk of gastrointestinal cancer mortality in men (HR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.30, 0.99). A greater adherence to DASH diet was also associated with lower other-cancer mortality in women (HR: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.24, 0.99). No association between DASH diet score and cardiovascular disease mortality was observed, except that those dying of cardiovascular disease were younger than 50 years of age and smokers. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that maintaining a diet similar to the DASH diet is independently associated with reducing the risk of total death, cancers, and especially gastrointestinal cancers in men.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据