Cited by 111Nutritional Studies and DietFatty Acid Research and HealthCardiovascular Health and Risk Factors

The long-term effect of dietary advice in men with coronary disease: follow-up of the Diet and Reinfarction trial (DART)

Ness, AR, Hughes, J, Elwood, PC, Whitley, E, Smith, GD, Burr, ML·2002·European Journal of Clinical Nutrition

Abstract

Objective To assess the long-term effect of dietary advice on diet and mortality after a randomised trial of men with a recent history of myocardial infarction.Design Questionnaire survey and mortality follow-up after a trial of dietary advice.Setting Twenty-one hospitals in south Wales and south-west England.Subjects Former participants in the Diet and Reinfarction Trial.Main outcome measures Current fish intake and cereal fibre intake. All-cause mortality, stroke mortality and coronary mortality.Results By February 2000, after 21147 person years of follow-up, 1083 (53%) of the men had died. Completed questionnaires were obtained from 879 (85%) of the 1030 men alive at the beginning of 1999. Relative increases in fish and fibre intake were still present at 10 y but were much smaller. The early reduction in all-cause mortality observed in those given fish advice (unadjusted hazard 0.70 (95% CI 0.54, 0.92)) was followed by an increased risk over the next 3 y (unadjusted hazard 1.31 (95% CI 1.01, 1.70). Fat and fibre advice had no clear effect on coronary or all-cause mortality. The risk of stroke death was increased in the fat advice group-the overall unadjusted hazard was 2.03 (95% CI 1.14, 3.63).Conclusions In this follow-up of a trial of intensive dietary advice following myocardial infarction we did not observe any substantial long-term survival benefit. Further trials of fish and fibre advice are feasible and necessary to clarify the role of these foods in coronary disease.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/sj.ejcn.1601342

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ness, A., Hughes, J., Elwood, P., Whitley, E., Smith, G., & Burr, M.
Affiliations
  • University Hospital Llandough (GB)
  • University of Bristol (GB)
Venue
European Journal of Clinical Nutrition
Published
2002-05-24
Volume
56
Issue
6
Pages
512-518
ISSN
  • 0954-3007 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-5640
OpenAlex
W2101683206
Cited by
111
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 6
FWCI
9.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • European Journal of Clinical Nutrition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (submittedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Nutritional Studies and Diet
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Fatty Acid Research and Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiovascular Health and Risk Factors
Keywords
dietary recommendations, myocardial infarction, coronary disease, fish consumption, all-cause mortality, stroke mortality, coronary heart disease mortality, long-term follow-up, men
MeSH terms
Animals, Edible Grain, Coronary Disease, Diet Surveys, Dietary Fats, Dietary Fiber, Fishes, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Myocardial Infarction, Patient Compliance, Surveys and Questionnaires, Recurrence, Risk Factors, Survival Analysis, Seafood, Stroke

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review