a) What is the study type b) What does a hazard ratio HR=1.35 for meat, and HR=0

Question

a) What is the study type

b) What does a hazard ratio HR=1.35 for meat, and HR=0.69 for fish mean? (Express this in your own words).

existing evidence is less convincing S: We prospectively followed 478 040 men and women from 10 Europ (Cls) for diet measurement errors. All statistical tests were two-sided th intake of red and processed meat (highest [ g/day] intake, HR-1.35.95% Cl : 096 to 188 1.28% for subjects in the highest category offish intake Note: HR-Hazard ratio is another term for RR-Relative Risk or Risk Ratio

Explanation / Answer

a) The given experiment is Cohort Study (Prospective Observational Study)

b) Given a hazard ratio HR=1.35 for meat, and HR=0.69 for fish

Increasing red and processed meat intake was statistically significantly associated with increasing risk of colorectal

cancer HR for highest versus lowest intake level= 1.57,

95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.13 to 2.17,

Ptrend = .001 in analysis adjusted for sex and energy intake. This increase in risk was somewhat reduced after

adjustment for other covariates

HR = 1.35,

95% CI = 0.96 to 1.88,

Ptrend= .03.

The association with cancers of the left side of the colon and the rectum was somewhat stronger than that with

cancers of the right side of the colon, but the difference was not statistically significant. In separate analyses, intake

of red meat was positively but not statistically significantly associated with colorectal cancer

HR for highest versus lowest intake = 1.17,

95% CI = 0.92 to 1.49,

P trend = .08,

whereas intake of processed meat was statistically significantly associated with increased colorectal cancer risk

HR for highest versus lowest intake = 1.42,

95% CI = 1.09 to 1.86,

Ptrend= .02.

The results for red meat were similar for colon and rectum and for right and left side of the colon. Hazard ratios for

processed meat intakes were somewhat higher for tumors of the left side of the colon and tumors of the rectum as

compared with tumors of the right side of the colon, but the differences were not statistically significant

Intake fish was statistically significantly inversely associated with colorectal cancer risk

for highest versus lowest intake HR = 0.69,

95% CI = 0.54 to 0.88,

Ptrend<.001.

The trend for an inverse association was statistically significant for cancers of the left side of the colon

(Ptrend = .02) and the rectum (Ptrend<.001), but not for cancers of the right side of the colon. Intake of poultry was

not statistically significantly associated with colorectal cancer risk. The inverse association with fish and the positive

association with red and processed meat intake persisted when fish, poultry, and red and processed meat were all

included as continuous variables in the same model (Ptrend<.001 for fish and Ptrend = .02 for red and processed

meat). In this study population, the absolute risk of developing colorectal cancer within 10 years for a study subject

aged 50 years was 1.71% for the highest category of red meat intake and 1.28% for the lowest category of intake,

was 1.86% for subjects in the lowest category of fish intake, and was 1.28% for subjects in the highest category of

fish intake.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse A
• Subjects

---

---

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.