首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Epidemiology and Infection >Are food exposures obtained through commercial market panels representative of the general population? Implications for outbreak investigations
【2h】

Are food exposures obtained through commercial market panels representative of the general population? Implications for outbreak investigations

机译:通过商业市场专家小组获得的食物暴露量是否能代表一般人群?爆发调查的意义

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Current methods of control recruitment for case-control studies can be slow (a particular issue for outbreak investigations), resource-intensive and subject to a range of biases. Commercial market panels are a potential source of rapidly recruited controls. Our study evaluated food exposure data from these panel controls, compared with an established reference dataset. Market panel data were collected from two companies using retrospective internet-based surveys; these were compared with reference data from the National Diet and Nutrition Survey (NDNS). We used logistic regression to calculate adjusted odds ratios to compare exposure to each of the 71 food items between the market panel and NDNS participants. We compared 2103 panel controls with 2696 reference participants. Adjusted for socio-demographic factors, exposure to 90% of foods was statistically different between both panels and the reference data. However, these differences were likely to be of limited practical importance for 89% of Panel A foods and 79% of Panel B foods. Market panel food exposures were comparable with reference data for common food exposures but more likely to be different for uncommon exposures. This approach should be considered for outbreak investigation, in conjunction with other considerations such as population at risk, timeliness of response and study resources.
机译:当前用于病例对照研究的对照招募方法可能很慢(爆发调查的一个特殊问题),资源密集并且受各种偏见的影响。商业市场小组是迅速招募控制人员的潜在来源。我们的研究评估了来自这些面板控件的食物暴露数据,并与已建立的参考数据集进行了比较。市场小组数据是使用基于互联网的回顾性调查从两家公司收集的;将这些与国家饮食和营养调查(NDNS)的参考数据进行了比较。我们使用逻辑回归来计算调整后的优势比,以比较市场专家组和NDNS参与者在71种食品中的每种食品的暴露量。我们将2103个面板控件与2696个参考参与者进行了比较。在对社会人口因素进行调整后,两个小组与参考数据之间在90%的食物中的暴露量在统计学上是不同的。但是,对于89%的A组食品和79%的B组食品,这些差异在实践中的重要性可能有限。市场专家小组的食物暴露量与普通食物暴露量的参考数据具有可比性,但罕见食物暴露量的可能性更大。应该将这种方法与其他考虑因素结合起来进行暴发调查,例如危险人群,响应及时性和研究资源。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号