Dietary acid load, alternative healthy eating index score, and bacterial vaginosis: is there any association? A case-control study

Table 3 Adjusted odds ratio (OR) estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for bacterial vaginosis depending on the tertile of dietary acid load*

dietary acid load	Tertiles of dietary acid load			P for Trend*
dietary acid load	1st	2nd	3rd	P for Trend*
PRAL (energy-adjusted, mEq/day)
Number of BV patients/Number of healthy participants	46 / 50	40 / 51	57 / 50
Model 1 ^†	1.00 (Ref.)	0.87 (0.48–1.57)	1.18 (0.67–2.07)	0.567
Model 2 ^‡	1.00 (Ref.)	0.81 (0.42–1.55)	1.13 (0.60–2.13)	0.697
NEAP (energy-adjusted, mEq/day)
Number of BV patients/Number of healthy participants	56 / 50	29 / 51	58 / 50
Model 1 ^†	1.00 (Ref.)	0.51 (0.28–0.93)	1.01 (0.58–1.75)	0.947
Model 2 ^‡	1.00 (Ref.)	0.45 (0.23–0.87)	0.94 (0.51-1. 76)	0.742

^* logistic regression model
^†Base model, adjustment for age (years) and total calories intake (Kcal/d)
^‡Additionally adjusted for body mass index (Kg/m²), waist circumferences (cm), iron supplementation (yes/no), folate supplementation (yes/no), vitamin D supplementation (yes/no), calcium supplementation (yes/no), physical activity (MET/h/d), number of sexual partners in the previous month, and number of pregnancies, salary (< 250 $/month or 250$/month=<), education (Primary/secondary school, Undergraduate, Graduate), cigarette per day
PRAL, potential renal acid load; NEAP, net endogenous acid production; BV, bacterial vaginosis

ISSN: 1471-2334