Cruciferous vegetable consumption and multiple health outcomes: an umbrella review of 41 systematic reviews and meta-analyses of 303 observational studies
Li YZ, Yang ZY, Gong TT, Liu YS, Liu FH, Wen ZY, Li XY, Gao C, Luan M, Zhao YH, Wu QJ
Food & function · 25 citas
Cómo se estudió
- Diseño
- Revisión sistemática (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 independiente
- Gobierno
- National Natural Science Foundation of China
- Gobierno
- Liaoning Revitalization Talents Program
- Universidad u hospital
- Shengjing Hospital
- Subvenciones
- Liaoning Revitalization Talents Program (XLYC1907102); National Natural Science Foundation of China (82073647); National Natural Science Foundation of China (81602918); National Natural Science Foundation of China (82103914)
Según 3 financiadores declarados.
Publicación
- Publicado
- 2022-01-01 · Food Funct · vol. 13 · número 8 · págs. 4247–4259
- Editorial
- Royal Society of Chemistry
- Citado
- 33 citas · más que el 69% de estudios similares · 0.7× el promedio de su campo
- Referencias
- 73 trabajos
- Acceso
- De pago
- Áreas de investigación
- Genomics, phytochemicals, and oxidative stress
- Palabras clave
- Observational study, Medicine, Systematic review, Meta-analysis, Publication bias, Lung cancer, Bladder cancer, MEDLINE, Cancer, Environmental health, Internal medicine, Biology
- MeSH
- humans, vegetables, stomach neoplasms, endometrial neoplasms, cardiovascular diseases, female, male, meta-analysis as topic, systematic reviews as topic
11 autores
- Yi-Zi Li🇨🇳China Medical University
- Zhiyong Yang🇨🇳China Medical University
- Ting‐Ting Gong🇨🇳 · autor de correspondenciaChina Medical University
- Yashu Liu🇨🇳China Medical University
- Fang-Hua Liu🇨🇳China Medical University
- Zhao-Yan Wen🇨🇳China Medical University
- Xinyu Li🇨🇳China Medical University
- Chang Gao🇨🇳China Medical University
- Meng Luan🇨🇳China Medical University
- Yuhong Zhao🇨🇳China Medical University
- Qi‐Jun Wu🇨🇳 · autor de correspondenciaChina Medical University
Resumen
El texto original del estudio, en el idioma en que se publicó.
Background: Epidemiological studies evaluating the associations between the consumption of cruciferous vegetables (CV) and diverse health outcomes have generated inconsistent findings. Therefore, we carried out an umbrella review to systematically summarize existing evidence on this topic. Methods: This study had been registered at PROSPERO (no. CRD42021262011). Relevant systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies were identified by searching PubMed, Web of science, and Embase databases from inception up to March 15, 2021. Observational studies investigating the association between CV intake and multiple health outcomes in humans were eligible for inclusion. The validated AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) instrument was utilized for assessing the methodological quality of the included systematic reviews. For each meta-analysis, we assessed the summary effect size by using fixed and random effects models, 95% prediction intervals, heterogeneity, evidence of small-study effects, and excess significance bias. Results: Our umbrella review included 41 meta-analyses of 303 individual studies involving 13 394 722 participants. Twenty-four health outcomes including cancers (n = 23), cardiovascular disease (n = 12), mortality (n = 5), and metabolic diseases (n = 1) were evaluated. The summary random effects estimates were significant at P Conclusions: It revealed that CV intake might be associated with beneficial effects on several health-related outcomes (gastric cancer, lung cancer, endometrial cancer, and all-cause mortality). Other associations could be genuine, but substantial uncertainty remains. Additional studies are needed to evaluate the relationship between the consumption of CV and various health outcomes as well as robust randomized controlled trials in the future.
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.