4.4 Article

Worldwide burden of gastric cancer in 2010 attributable to high sodium intake in 1990 and predicted attributable burden for 2030 based on exposures in 2010

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF NUTRITION
卷 116, 期 4, 页码 728-733

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0007114516002518

关键词

Sodium; Stomach neoplasms; Population attributable fractions; Predictions

资金

  1. 'Fundo Europeu de Desenvolvi-mento Regional' (FEDER) funds through the 'Programa Operacional Factores de Competitividade' (POFC) - COMPETE [FCOMP-01-0124-FEDER-021181]
  2. national funds through the 'Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia' [PTDC/SAU-EPI/122460/2010]
  3. Epidemiology Research Unit-Institute of Public Health, University of Porto [UID/DTP/047507/2013]
  4. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [PTDC/SAU-EPI/122460/2010] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Assessing the impact that patterns of Na intake may have on gastric cancer will provide a more comprehensive estimation of Na reduction as a primary prevention approach. We aimed to estimate the proportion of gastric cancer cases that are attributable to Na intake above the recommendation by the WHO (<= 2g/d) throughout the world in 2010, as well as expected values for 2030. Population attributable fractions (PAF) were computed for 187 countries, using Na intakes in 1990 and 2010 and estimates of the association between Na intake and gastric cancer, assuming a time lag of 20 years. Median PAF ranged from 10.1% in low to 22.5% in very high Human Development Index (HDI) countries in men (P < 0.001) and from 7.2 to 16.6%, respectively, among women (P < 0.001). An increase in median PAF until 2030 is expected in most settings, except for countries classified as low HDI, in both sexes. High Na intakes account for a large proportion of gastric cancer cases, and proportions are expected to increase in almost all of the countries. Intensified efforts to diminish Na intake in virtually all populations are needed to further reduce gastric cancer burden.

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

4.4
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