TABLE 2.
HR for the 2 derived dietary patterns per each country1
| Country/center-specific dietary pattern 1 | Country/center-specific dietary pattern 2 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR (95% CI) | P | HR (95% CI) | P | ||
| France (n = 828) | Model 1 | 1.14 (0.99, 1.31) | 0.08 | 1.15 (0.92, 1.42) | 0.22 |
| Model 2 | 1.06 (0.90, 1.26) | 0.49 | 0.64 (0.49, 0.85) | 0.002 | |
| Italy (n = 3193) | Model 1 | 1.22 (1.11, 1.35) | <0.0001 | 1.13 (1.01, 1.26) | 0.04 |
| Model 2 | 1.10 (0.98, 1.23) | 0.10 | 1.01 (0.89, 1.14) | 0.93 | |
| Spain (n = 5766) | Model 1 | 1.32 (1.19, 1.46) | <0.0001 | 0.99 (0.93, 1.06) | 0.86 |
| Model 2 | 1.14 (1.03, 1.27) | 0.02 | 1.02 (0.95, 1.09) | 0.67 | |
| UK-Norfolk (n = 1605) | Model 1 | 0.89 (0.78, 1.02) | 0.09 | 1.41 (1.19, 1.67) | <0.0001 |
| Model 2 | 0.89 (0.77, 1.03) | 0.11 | 1.24 (1.02, 1.51) | 0.03 | |
| UK-Oxford (n = 536) | Model 1 | 0.92 (0.74, 1.14) | 0.44 | 1.61 (1.25, 2.07) | 0.0002 |
| Model 2 | 1.11 (0.88, 1.39) | 0.38 | 1.22 (0.94, 1.60) | 0.14 | |
| Netherlands (n = 2119) | Model 1 | 1.25 (1.09, 1.45) | 0.0022 | 1.02 (0.90, 1.15) | 0.74 |
| Model 2 | 1.10 (0.93, 1.29) | 0.27 | 0.92 (0.79, 1.06) | 0.24 | |
| Germany (n = 3553) | Model 1 | 1.00 (0.92, 1.09) | 0.99 | 1.20 (1.08, 1.34) | 0.0008 |
| Model 2 | 0.97 (0.88, 1.07) | 0.55 | 1.08 (0.96, 1.21) | 0.19 | |
| Sweden (n = 3539) | Model 1 | 1.08 (0.97, 1.21) | 0.18 | 1.03 (0.96, 1.11) | 0.39 |
| Model 2 | 1.08 (0.95, 1.23) | 0.25 | 1.00 (0.91, 1.09) | 0.91 | |
| Denmark (n = 4019) | Model 1 | 0.92 (0.85, 0.99) | 0.02 | 1.30 (1.15, 1.46) | <0.0001 |
| Model 2 | 0.98 (0.90, 1.06) | 0.60 | 1.08 (0.94, 1.24) | 0.26 | |
1Model 1 was adjusted for sex, physical activity, smoking, education, and total energy intake; Model 2 was further adjusted for BMI and waist circumference.