Nut consumption in relation to all-cause and cause-specific mortality: a meta-analysis 18 prospective studies
Chen GC, Zhang R, Martínez-González MA, Zhang ZL, Bonaccio M, van Dam RM, Qin LQ
Food & function · 46 citas
Etiquetas de revisión
Financiación no declaradaDatos neutrales que nuestra revisión registró sobre cómo se hizo este estudio. Describen el método, nunca si nos gusta el resultado.
Cómo se estudió
- Diseño
- Metaanálisis (indexado por PubMed)
- Estudiado en
- Personas
- Resultado principal
- Eventos clínicos como enfermedad o muerte
- Consumo medido con
- No se indica
Quién lo pagó
- Financiación
- Financiación no declarada
Publicación
- Publicado
- 2017-01-01 · Food Funct · vol. 8 · número 11 · págs. 3893–3905
- Editorial
- Royal Society of Chemistry
- Citado
- 75 citas · más que el 78% de estudios similares · 0.8× el promedio de su campo
- Referencias
- 64 trabajos
- Acceso
- De pago
- Áreas de investigación
- Nuts composition and effects · Nutritional Studies and Diet · Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
- Palabras clave
- Medicine, Meta-analysis, Confounding, Demography, Mortality rate, Nut, Prospective cohort study, Population, Relative risk, Risk of mortality, Confidence interval, Internal medicine, Environmental health
- MeSH
- humans, nuts, cardiovascular diseases, prospective studies, randomized controlled trials as topic
7 autores
- Guo-Chong Chen🇸🇬🇨🇳National University of Singapore; Soochow University; National University Health System
- Ru Zhang🇨🇳Soochow University
- Miguel Ángel Martínez‐González🇪🇸Instituto de Salud Carlos III; Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red; Universidad de Navarra
- Zeng-Li Zhang🇲🇱🇨🇳Ministère de la Santé et de l'Hygiène Publique; Soochow University
- Marialaura Bonaccio🇮🇹Istituto Neurologico Mediterraneo
- Rob M. van Dam🇰🇷🇸🇬 · autor de correspondenciaYong In University; National University of Singapore; National University Health System
- Li-Qiang Qin🇨🇳 · autor de correspondenciaSoochow University
Resumen
El texto original del estudio, en el idioma en que se publicó.
Several previous meta-analyses show a consistent inverse association between nut consumption and all-cause mortality, but the associations with cause-specific mortality remain uncertain. A recent meta-analysis on nut consumption and multiple health outcomes combined incidence and mortality outcomes across most of the analyses, which may have introduced heterogeneity across studies. We conducted an updated meta-analysis to evaluate the nut-mortality association. We searched PubMed and EMBASE and we contacted authors for additional data. The final analyses included 18 prospective studies. The random-effects summary RRs for high compared with low nut consumption were 0.81 (95% CI: 0.78-0.84) for all-cause mortality (18 studies with 81 034 deaths), 0.75 (95% CI: 0.71-0.79) for CVD mortality (17 studies with 20 381 deaths), 0.73 (95% CI: 0.67-0.80) for CHD mortality (14 studies with 10 438 deaths), 0.82 (95% CI: 0.73-0.91) for stroke mortality (13 studies with 4850 deaths) and 0.87 (95% CI: 0.80-0.93) for cancer mortality (11 studies 21 353 deaths). These results were broadly consistent within subgroups according to various study and population characteristics and within sensitivity analyses that took into account potential confounders. Peanut (5 studies) and tree nut (3 studies) consumption were similarly associated with mortality risks. Dose-response analyses suggested evidence for nonlinear associations between nut consumption and mortality (P-nonlinearity -1). Our findings suggest that nut consumption is associated with reduced all-cause and cause-specific mortality, with the strongest reduction for CHD mortality. Both tree nuts and peanuts may lower mortality and most of the survival benefits may be achieved at a relative low level of nut consumption.
Resumen vía Europe PMC. Los derechos de autor siguen siendo de los autores o la editorial.
Confianza de la comunidad
Cargando…
¿Cuánto confías en los hallazgos de este estudio?
Comentarios
¿Algo está mal aquí?
Señala este estudio si su información, etiquetas o financiación parecen incorrectas. Un editor revisa cada señalamiento.
Información educativa sobre investigación publicada. No es consejo médico ni una recomendación para empezar o dejar nada.