Table 1.
Rate ratios of potential risk factors for self-reported duodenal ulcers, Cooper Institute for Aerobics Research, Dallas, Texas,1970-1990
Men (n = 8,529) | Women (n = 2,884) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Risk factor | Cases, No. | Subjects, No. | RR (95% CI) | Cases, No. | Subjects, No. | RR (95% CI) |
Physical activity | ||||||
Active | 6 | 2,059 | 0.23 (0.10-0.55) | 3 | 563 | 0.82 (0.21-3.28) |
Moderately active | 20 | 3,686 | 0.43 (0.25-0.75) | 4 | 1,395 | 0.44 (0.13-1.56) |
Referent | 35 | 2,784 | 1.00 | 6 | 926 | 100 |
|
|
Trend test: χ2 = 16.71, P = 0.001
|
|
Trend test: χ2 = 0.29, P = 0.59
|
||
Psychologicaltension* | ||||||
High | 22 | 1,905 | 2.28 (1.32-3.92) | 2 | 635 | 0.74 (0.16-3.42) |
Low | 31 | 6,112 | 1.00 | 9 | 2,116 | 1.00 |
Smoking | ||||||
Yes | 52 | 3,362 | 1.70 (1.03-2.08) | 4 | 1,043 | 0.78 (0.24-2.54) |
No | 29 | 5,167 | 1.00 | 9 | 1,841 | 1.00 |
Ethanol consumption | ||||||
Heavy | 12 | 2,059 | 0.82 (0.40-1.70) | 1 | 325 | 0.67 (0.08-5.75) |
Moderate | 8 | 1,507 | 0.75 (0.33-1.72) | 1 | 369 | 0.59 (0.07-5.04) |
Light | 23 | 2,421 | 1.34 (0.73-2.48) | 6 | 1,098 | 1.19 (0.37-3.90) |
None | 18 | 2,542 | 1.00 | 5 | 1,092 | 1.00 |
|
|
Trend test: χ2 = 0.81, P = 0.37
|
|
Trend test: χ2 = 0.04, P = 0.85
|
||
Age | ||||||
>60 | 5 | 537 | 1.30 (0.49-3.41) | 1 | 179 | 1.31 (0.15-11.13) |
40.1 to 60 | 34 | 4,927 | 0.96 (0.56-1.64) | 7 | 1,535 | 1.07 (0.34-3.35) |
20 to 40 | 22 | 3,065 | 1.00 | 5 | 1,170 | 1.00 |
|
|
Trend test: χ2 = 0.06, P = 0.81
|
|
Trend test: χ2 = 0.05, P = 0.82
|
||
Body mass index | ||||||
Higher 25% | 12 | 1,923 | 0.89 (0.46-1.71) | 1 | 618 | 0.38 (0.05-3.09) |
Reference | 33 | 4,684 | 1.00 | 7 | 1,650 | 1.00 |
Lower 25% | 16 | 1,922 | 1.18 (0.65-2.14) | 5 | 616 | 1.91 (0.61-6.01) |
RR = risk ratio; CI = confidence interval |
The number of subjects in this category differs because only a subset of respondents was asked about psychological tension.