F F Zeng1, W Q Xue, W T Cao, B H Wu, H L Xie, F Fan, H L Zhu, Y M Chen. 1. Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Food, Nutrition and Health, School of Public Health, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: This case-control study compared the associations of four widely used diet-quality scoring systems with the risk of hip fractures and assessed their utility in elderly Chinese. We found that individuals avoiding a low-quality diet have a lower risk of hip fractures in elderly Chinese. INTRODUCTION: Few studies examined the associations of diet-quality scores on bone health, and no studies were available in Asians and compared their validity and utility in a study. We assessed the associations and utility of four widely used diet-quality scoring systems with the risk of hip fractures. METHODS: A case-control study of 726 patients with hip fractures (diagnosed within 2 weeks) aged 55-80 years and 726 age- (within 3 years) and gender-matched controls was conducted in Guangdong, China (2009-2013). Dietary intake was assessed using a 79-item food frequency questionnaire with face-to-face interviews, and the Healthy Eating Index-2005 (HEI-2005, 12 items), the alternate Healthy Eating Index (aHEI, 8 items), the Diet Quality Index-International (DQI-I, 17 items), and the alternate Mediterranean Diet Score (aMed, 9 items) (the simplest one) were calculated. RESULTS: All greater values of the diet-quality scores were significantly associated with a similar decreased risk of hip fractures (all p trends <0.001). The multivariate-adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidential intervals (95% CIs) comparing the extreme groups of diet-quality scores were 0.29 (0.18, 0.46) (HEI-2005), 0.20 (0.12, 0.33) (aHEI), 0.25 (0.16, 0.39) (DQI-I), and 0.28 (0.18, 0.43) (aMed) in total subjects; and the corresponding ORs ranged from 0.04 to 0.27 for men and from 0.26 to 0.44 for women (all p trends <0.05), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Avoiding a low-quality diet is associated with a lower risk of hip fractures, and the aMed score is the best scoring system due to its equivalent performance and simplicity for the user.
UNLABELLED: This case-control study compared the associations of four widely used diet-quality scoring systems with the risk of hip fractures and assessed their utility in elderly Chinese. We found that individuals avoiding a low-quality diet have a lower risk of hip fractures in elderly Chinese. INTRODUCTION: Few studies examined the associations of diet-quality scores on bone health, and no studies were available in Asians and compared their validity and utility in a study. We assessed the associations and utility of four widely used diet-quality scoring systems with the risk of hip fractures. METHODS: A case-control study of 726 patients with hip fractures (diagnosed within 2 weeks) aged 55-80 years and 726 age- (within 3 years) and gender-matched controls was conducted in Guangdong, China (2009-2013). Dietary intake was assessed using a 79-item food frequency questionnaire with face-to-face interviews, and the Healthy Eating Index-2005 (HEI-2005, 12 items), the alternate Healthy Eating Index (aHEI, 8 items), the Diet Quality Index-International (DQI-I, 17 items), and the alternate Mediterranean Diet Score (aMed, 9 items) (the simplest one) were calculated. RESULTS: All greater values of the diet-quality scores were significantly associated with a similar decreased risk of hip fractures (all p trends <0.001). The multivariate-adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidential intervals (95% CIs) comparing the extreme groups of diet-quality scores were 0.29 (0.18, 0.46) (HEI-2005), 0.20 (0.12, 0.33) (aHEI), 0.25 (0.16, 0.39) (DQI-I), and 0.28 (0.18, 0.43) (aMed) in total subjects; and the corresponding ORs ranged from 0.04 to 0.27 for men and from 0.26 to 0.44 for women (all p trends <0.05), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Avoiding a low-quality diet is associated with a lower risk of hip fractures, and the aMed score is the best scoring system due to its equivalent performance and simplicity for the user.
Authors: Jenny H Ledikwe; Heidi M Blanck; Laura Kettel Khan; Mary K Serdula; Jennifer D Seymour; Beth C Tohill; Barbara J Rolls Journal: J Am Diet Assoc Date: 2006-08
Authors: Lisa Langsetmo; David A Hanley; Jerilynn C Prior; Susan I Barr; Tassos Anastassiades; Tanveer Towheed; David Goltzman; Suzanne Morin; Suzette Poliquin; Nancy Kreiger Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2010-11-10 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Teresa T Fung; Kathryn M Rexrode; Christos S Mantzoros; JoAnn E Manson; Walter C Willett; Frank B Hu Journal: Circulation Date: 2009-02-16 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: V Benetou; P Orfanos; U Pettersson-Kymmer; U Bergström; O Svensson; I Johansson; F Berrino; R Tumino; K B Borch; E Lund; P H M Peeters; V Grote; K Li; J M Altzibar; T Key; H Boeing; A von Ruesten; T Norat; P A Wark; E Riboli; A Trichopoulou Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2012-10-20 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Lisa Langsetmo; Suzette Poliquin; David A Hanley; Jerilynn C Prior; Susan Barr; Tassos Anastassiades; Tanveer Towheed; David Goltzman; Nancy Kreiger Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2010-01-28 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Sabrina E Noel; Kelsey M Mangano; Josiemer Mattei; John L Griffith; Bess Dawson-Hughes; Sherman Bigornia; Katherine L Tucker Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2020-06-01 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Bernhard Haring; Carolyn J Crandall; Chunyuan Wu; Erin S LeBlanc; James M Shikany; Laura Carbone; Tonya Orchard; Fridtjof Thomas; Jean Wactawaski-Wende; Wenjun Li; Jane A Cauley; Sylvia Wassertheil-Smoller Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2016-05-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Tonya Orchard; Vedat Yildiz; Susan E Steck; James R Hébert; Yunsheng Ma; Jane A Cauley; Wenjun Li; Yasmin Mossavar-Rahmani; Karen C Johnson; Maryam Sattari; Meryl LeBoff; Jean Wactawski-Wende; Rebecca D Jackson Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2017-02-21 Impact factor: 6.741