Skip to main content
. 2023 Oct 19;63(2):365–375. doi: 10.1007/s00394-023-03271-0

Table 3.

Association of energy-adjusted dietary scores DASH, MMDS, and HNFI with all-cause mortality using Cox proportional hazard regression models stratified by smoking status, BMI classes, and pre-existing diabetes, respectively

Smoking status BMI classes Diabetes
Never (n = 353) Current (n = 109) Former (n = 374) p value3  ≤ 24.9 kg/m2 (n = 257) 25.0–29.9 kg/m2 (n = 387)  ≥ 30.0 kg/m2 (n = 192) p value3 No (n = 758) Yes (n = 78) p value3
DASH1 (energy-adjusted)2 1.34 [0.85–2.11] 0.40 [0.170.94] 0.96 [0.73–1.27] 0.4690 0.70 [0.48–1.01] 1.25 [0.88–1.78] 1.26 [0.78–2.04] 0.0842 0.99 [0.77–1.28] 0.85 [0.47–1.52] 0.5825
MMDS1 (energy-adjusted)2 0.80 [0.54–1.18] 0.51 [0.21–1.21] 0.97 [0.74–1.26] 0.3162 0.81 [0.55–1.21] 0.99 [0.73–1.35] 0.83 [0.55–1.25] 0.9925 0.92 [0.73–1.16] 0.51 [0.300.88] 0.2382
HNFI1 (energy-adjusted)2 0.86 [0.57–1.30] 0.41 [0.180.94] 0.85 [0.65–1.11] 0.7078 0.76 [0.53–1.09] 1.00 [0.70–1.43] 0.64 [0.410.99] 0.7808 0.87 [0.69–1.11] 0.39 [0.210.73] 0.0251

BMI body mass index, DASH Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension, HNFI Healthy Nordic Food Index, kg kilograms, m meters, MMDS Modified Mediterranean Diet Score

1To increase comparability between dietary scores, 1-Standard Deviation increments were used as continuous scores

2For stratified survival analyses, we used dietary scores adjusted for total energy intake using residual method and subsequent addition of a constant based on mean energy intake of the study sample

3p values indicate interaction between variables and dietary scores

Values are in hazard ratios [95% confidence interval] with bold figures indicating statistical significance (p < 0.05). Analyses were adjusted for sex, age, BMI, waist to hip ratio, education, smoking status, total energy intake, and physical activity