4.6 Article

Relations of serum ascorbic acid and α-tocopherol to diabetic retinopathy in the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 158, 期 3, 页码 225-233

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwg116

关键词

ascorbic acid; diabetic retinopathy; nutrition surveys; vitamin E

资金

  1. NEI NIH HHS [EY11722] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The protective relation of ascorbic acid and cc-tocopherol to the development of diabetic retinopathy has not been thoroughly evaluated in epidemiologic studies. The association of prevalent diabetic retinopathy with serum ascorbic acid and alpha-tocopherol was studied among participants with type 2 diabetes (greater than or equal to40 years) (n=998) in the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (1988-1994); 20% of the sample (n=199) had prevalent retinopathy. The overall odds ratio for retinopathy among participants in quartile 4 compared with quartile 1 for serum ascorbic acid was 1.3 (95% confidence interval: 0.8, 2.3), with a p for trend=0.60 after adjustment for the confounders of smoking, race, waist/hip ratio, hypertension, and duration of diabetes. The overall odds ratio for retinopathy among participants in quartile 4 compared with quartile 1 for serum alpha-tocopherol was 2.7 (95% confidence interval: 1.6, 4.6), with a p for trend=0.14 after adjustment for confounders. After removal of supplement users of vitamin C (n=307) or vitamin E (n=298), the odds ratio changed direction or was attenuated: adjusted odds ratios for retinopathy among participants in quartile 4 compared with quartile 1 for serum ascorbic acid and alpha-tocopherol=0.7 (95% confidence interval: 0.3, 1.4) and 1.6 (95% confidence interval: 0.9, 2.9), respectively. In summary, no significant associations were observed between serum levels of major dietary antioxidants and retinopathy. Recent use of supplements for treatment of complications of diabetes may explain the direct associations.

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