Does parity matter in women’s risk of dementia? A COSMIC collaboration cohort study

Table 3 Comparison of the cohort characteristics between three parity groups

Characteristics	Number of parities			Statistics*
Characteristics	0	1 to 4	≥ 5	F or χ²	P	Post hoc*
Age, mean ± SD, years	74 ± 8.3	72.3 ± 7.7	75.6 ± 7.7	224.345	< 0.001	a > b, a < c, b < c
Educational level, %				1122.978	< 0.001	–
≤ 6 years or primary school or under	36.5	43.9	80.0
7 to 12 years or secondary school	44.4	42.6	17.1
> 12 years or tertiary school or above	19.1	13.6	2.9
Hypertension, %	69.3	65.2	70.9	33.289	< 0.001	a > b, b < c
Diabetes mellitus, %	13.1	16.5	23.5	84.376	< 0.001	a < b, a < c, b < c,
Dementia prevalence, %	5.8	5.0	10.5	103.961	< 0.001	a < c, b < c,
Dementia subtypes,^† %				112.556	< 0.001	–
AD	4.6	3.1	7.1
VD	0.6	0.5	1.1
NAVD	2.2	1.0	2.4

*Continuous variables were compared using analysis of variance, and categorical variables were compared using the χ² test. Post hoc comparisons were based on Scheffé’s theorem: a = nulliparity; b = 1 to 4 parities; c = grand multiparity
^†Estimated using 9 cohorts providing data on dementia subtypes

ISSN: 1741-7015