4.6 Article

Association between dietary antioxidant indices and glaucoma in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey

期刊

FRONTIERS IN NUTRITION
卷 10, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fnut.2023.1304809

关键词

dietary; glaucoma; antioxidant; NHANES; nutrition epidemiology; cross-sectional study

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study analyzed the NHANES database and found that higher dietary antioxidant indices were associated with a lower risk of glaucoma.
Objective: To explore the relationship between dietary antioxidant indices (DAI) and glaucoma using the data from the 2005 to 2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).Methods: Our study comprised participants who completed the NHANES dietary intake interview and visual health questionnaire at age 40 or older. The intakes of the vitamins A, C, and E as well as of zinc, selenium, and magnesium were used to generate the DAI, which represents the overall antioxidant qualities. The self-report method for glaucoma diagnosis (ever been told by an eye doctor) was used. Survey logistic regression analyses were employed to investigate the association between DAI and glaucoma.Results: A total of 6,128 participants were included in our study. The unadjusted model's findings revealed a negative correlation between dietary antioxidant indices and self-reported glaucoma [0.93 (0.90, 0.96), p < 0.0001]. For every unit increase in dietary antioxidant indices, the risks of self-reported glaucoma in model 1 (adjusted for age, sex, race, marital status and PIR) decreased by 5% [0.95 (0.90, 0.99), p = 0.02]. After adjusting all the covariates (model 2), the risks of self-reported glaucoma decreased by 6% [0.94 (0.90, 0.99), p = 0.02] for each unit increase of dietary antioxidant indices. After converting DAI into classified variables (tertile), the same trend was found (p = 0.001).Conclusion: In this analysis of the NHANES database, we found higher dietary antioxidant indices were associated with lower risk of glaucoma.

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

4.6
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