A major barrier to the conduct and interpretation of retrospective studies of diet and cancer has been uncertainty about the reliability of retrospective measures of diet from the distant past. The authors therefore conducted a study to assess the reliability of retrospective dietary reports and to determine whether the retrospective report or the report of current diet is the better indicator of past diet. Persons (n = 323) originally interviewed regarding their diets in 1975-1979 were retrospectively reinterviewed in 1984-1985. There was little difference between the retrospective reports and the reports of current diet when group means were examined as indicators of past diet. The retrospective reports tended to overestimate the past frequency of consumption for most foods, whereas the reports of current diet tended to yield underestimates. Because food frequency-based dietary history data are more useful for ranking study subjects than for generating estimates of group means, correlation analysis was used as the principal assessment of the reliability of the two indicators of past diet. The retrospective reports more closely correlated with the diet reported at the original interview than did the report of current diet (for 37 of 47 foods). Nutrient indices based on the retrospective history were also more highly correlated with those of the original diet than were indices based on the current diet. No differences were noted in the reliability of retrospective reports according to age or sex. Subjects accurately reported perceptions of changes in their consumption of most foods, yet an estimate of past diet created by adjusting current diet for perceived change did not correlate more highly with the original diet than did the retrospective report. The authors conclude that assessing current diet to make inference about diet from the distant past does not yield more reliable estimates of past diet than does the retrospective dietary history. The best estimate of diet from several years in the past may be derived directly from a retrospective dietary history which focuses on that past period of time.
To evaluate the association between necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), growth, and feeding. This is a retrospective study of 551 infants (birth weight ≤ 1,500 g, ≤32 weeks' gestation). NEC, Bell's stage ≥ 2, was confirmed by independent review of sentinel radiographs. Feeding type was defined as ≥ 50% maternal milk (MM), pasteurized donor human milk (PDHM), or preterm formula (PF). Demographic and clinical characteristics including growth were compared between the three groups. Multivariable regression analysis was performed to control variables that differed in bivariate analysis. PDHM and PF mothers were more likely to be African-American, be enrolled in Medicaid, and have chorioamnionitis. PF mothers received antenatal steroids less frequently. NEC rates were different by feeding group (MM: 5.3%; PHDM: 4.3%; PF: 11.4%; = 0.04). Adjusting for group differences, lower gestational age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.74-0.97; = 0.02], and PF (aOR: 2.53; 95% CI: 1.15-5.53; = 0.02] were associated with NEC. There were no differences in other health outcomes or growth at hospital discharge. MM and PDHM feedings, given until 34 weeks postmenstrual age, were associated with lower rates of NEC in very low birth weight infants without interfering with growth.
The critical clinical questions to the radiologist in the setting of adnexal lesions are the site of origin, benign versus malignant features, and presence of infection or abscess. Pairing clinical presentation and imaging findings will direct appropriate management, whether it is reassurance, follow-up imaging, or surgery.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.