4.7 Article

Cohort Profile: The Shanghai Men's Health Study

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 44, Issue 3, Pages 810-818

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyv013

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. US National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health [R01 CA082729, UM1 CA173640]
  2. State Key Project Specialized for Infectious Diseases, China [2008ZX10002-015, 2012ZX10002008-002]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The Shanghai Men's Health Study (SMHS) is a population-based cohort study of 61 480 men aged 40-74 years, launched in 2002 in urban Shanghai to investigate the contribution of lifestyle/environmental factors and genetic susceptibility to cancer and other non-communicable diseases (NCDs). At baseline, trained interviewers collected detailed information on personal and dietary habits, occupational/medical history and physical activity, and took anthropometric measurements (response rate: 74%). Blood, urine and DNA were collected from 75%, 89% and 89% of participants, respectively. The cohort has been followed up through a combination of in-person surveys every 3-4 years and annual record linkage with cancer and vital statistics registries. Response rates for in-person follow-up surveys were over 91% and coverage for mortality nearly 100%. SMHS participants have a high smoking rate (58.6%) and moderate alcohol-drinking rate (29.3%), but low obesity rate (2.6%). They have a low calorie intake from fat (16.2% of total calorie intake) and protein (16.4%), high calorie intake from carbohydrates (67.4%), and high intake of soy food, cruciferous vegetables and fish (156.5, 110.6 and 51.7 g/day, respectively). With its unique exposure pattern and wealth of data and biological samples, the SMHS is well positioned for long-term research into NCD aetiology and prognosis. Information about accessing the SMHS resources can be found at: http://www.mc.vanderbilt.edu/swhs-smhs/.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available