4.4 Article

Risk factors for Parkinson's disease: The Leisure World cohort study

期刊

NEUROEPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 20, 期 2, 页码 118-124

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000054770

关键词

Parkinson's disease; risk factors; smoking; alcohol; coffee; hypertension; vitamins

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA32197] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We conducted a case-control study nested within a prospective cohort study of 13,979 residents of Leisure World Laguna Hills, a retirement community in southern California, for etiologic clues for Parkinson's disease (PD). Between 1981 (when first mailed a health survey) and 1998, we identified 395 PD cases from death certificates, hospital discharge diagnoses and a 1992 follow-up questionnaire. Six controls were individually matched on sex, birth date (+/-2 years), vital status and, if dead, death date (+/-1 year) to each case. Baseline characteristics of the 395 cases and 2,320 controls were analyzed as potential PD risk factors. The risk of PD was significantly reduced among smokers, hypertensives, coffee drinkers and alcohol consumers, and significantly increased among those with 3 or more children and with a high intake of total vitamin A and dietary vitam in C. The multivariate odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) were 0.42 (0.22-0.80) for current cigarette smokers of 1+ pack/day, 0.62 (0.48-0.80) for current users of hypertensive medication, 0.71 (0.52-0.95) for coffee drinkers of 2+ cups/day and 0.77 (0.58-1.03) for drinkers of 2+ alcoholic drinks! day. Risk increased with increasing number of children (1.25 for 1, 1.34 for 2 and 1.90 for 3+ children; p for trend = 0.0003). The increased risks among individuals in the highest third of total vitamin A intake and of dietary vitamin C intake were no longer statistically significant after adjusting for the other variables. These findings suggest several environmental factors that may be related to the development of PD and support a multifactorial etiology. Copyright (C) 2000 S.Karger AG, Basel.

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