Response by Lee et al to Letter Regarding Article, "Accelerometer-Measured Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior in Relation to All-Cause Mortality: The Women's Health Study".
Response by Lee et al to Letter Regarding Article, "Accelerometer-Measured Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior in Relation to All-Cause Mortality: The Women's Health Study".
复制标题
Lee 等人对有关文章“加速度计测量的体力活动和久坐行为与全因死亡率相关：女性健康研究”的回复。
DOI：
10.1161/circulationaha.118.034737
复制
发表时间：
2018
期刊：
影响因子：
37.8
通讯作者：
Buring,JulieE
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Lee,I-Min;Shiroma,EricJ;Buring,JulieE
我们感谢Yang等人对我们发表的文章1所做的评论，并同意提出的观点。首先，关于随访时间，发表的文章是基于妇女健康研究中加速计评估后累积的随访时间，因此，该特定分析的随访时间很短（尽管母研究2- 4的随访时间目前> 20年）。参与者将继续接受各种健康结局的随访，未来，我们将能够从更长的随访时间中提供更多数据，这些数据涉及设备评估的体力活动和久坐行为与全因死亡率以及其他疾病（如心血管疾病、癌症和2型糖尿病）的关系，这些疾病是美国女性死亡的主要原因。我们同意混杂因素是与暴露和结果相关的变量。我们最初提交的是一篇完整的文章，详细介绍了与体力活动相关的变量分布。然而，期刊编辑要求将文章缩短为研究信函;因此，这些细节被删除。关于特定的协变量是混杂因素还是中介因素，存在不同的意见。批判性地研究这个问题的一种方法是展示那些没有调整这些协变量的模型和那些调整了这些协变量的模型的结果。同样，由于研究信件的简短，我们无法在已发表的文章中显示不同的模型。我们预计不久将在另一个地点公布这些额外的细节。
We thank Yang et al for the comments they made about our published article 1 and agree with the points raised. First, concerning follow-up time, the article published was based on follow-up time accrued after accelerometer assessments in the Women’s Health Study, and thus, follow-up time was short for this particular analysis (although follow-up for the parent study 2– 4 is currently> 20 years). Participants continue to be followed up for various health outcomes, and in the future, we will be able to provide more data from longer follow-up times on device-assessed physical activity and sedentary behavior in relation to all-cause mortality, as well as other diseases such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, and type 2 diabetes mellitus, which are major causes of mortality in US women.Second, we agree that confounders are variables related to both exposure and outcome. We had initially submitted our article as a full-length article, with details on the distributions of variables related to physical activity. However, the journal editors requested that the article be shortened to a research letter; hence, these details were removed. Concerning whether particular covariates are confounders or mediators, there are differences of opinion. One way to critically examine this question would be to show the results from models that do not and models that do adjust for these covariates. Again, because of the brevity of the research letter, we were unable to show the different models in the published article. We expect to publish these additional details shortly in another venue.
影响因子：
120.7
作者：
Cook, NR;Lee, IM;Buring, JE
通讯作者：
Buring, JE