Table 6.
Studies evaluating egg intake.
Reference | Country | Age | Cases/ Controls or total cohort | Type of study | Exposure | Contrast | OR (95% CI) | P for trend | Covariates considered* | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A | B | E | S | H | R | |||||||||
Zheng et al., 1995[29] | United States | 55–69 | 216/23,070 | Cohort | Eggs | Q3 vs. Q1 | 1.3 | >0.05 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||
Shu et al., 1993 [9] | China | 18–74 | 268/268 | Population- based cc | Eggs | >300 vs. <50 g/week | 2.1 | <0.01 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
Goodman et al., 1997 [34] | United States | 18–84 | 332/511 | Population based cc | Eggs | >23.1 vs. <6 g/day | 1.6 | 0.06 | (A) | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
Xu et al., 2006 [37] | China | 30–69 | 1204/1212 | Population- based cc | Eggs | >43.7 vs. <12.5 g/day | 0.9 (0.7–1.2) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||
Levi et al., 1993 [7] | Italy and Switzerland | 30–75 | 274/572 | Hospital- based cc | Eggs | Q3 vs. Q1 | 2.13 | <0.01 | 1 | 1 | ||||
Hirose et al., 1996[40] | Japan | >20 | 145/26,751 | Hospital- based cc | Eggs | >3 vs. <1–2 servings/week | 0.85 (0.54–1.34) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
Adjustment columns: A = Age; B = BMI/weight; E = Total Energy; S = Smoking; H = HRT/ERT use; R = Reproductive factors; (A): matched on age. Numbers in columns refer to the number of covariates adjusted for under that grouping. Abbreviations: Q: quantile; T: tertile; cc: case-control.