Meta-analysis of Egg Consumption and Risk of Coronary Heart Disease and Stroke
Alexander DD, Miller PE, Vargas AJ, Weed DL, Cohen SS
Journal of the American College of Nutrition · 82 citations
Review labels
Neutral facts our review recorded about how this study was done. They describe method, never whether we like the result.
How it was studied
- Design
- Meta-analysis (indexed by PubMed)
- Studied in
- People
- Main outcome
- Clinical events such as disease or death
- Intake measured by
- Not stated
Who paid for it
- Funding
- Funding not disclosed
Publication
- Published
- 2016-10-06 · J Am Coll Nutr · vol. 35 · issue 8 · pp. 704–716
- Publisher
- Taylor & Francis
- Cited
- 141 citations · more than 91% of similar papers · 2.8× the field average
- Impact
- Top 10% most cited in its field
- References
- 41 works
- Access
- Paywalled
- Research areas
- Nutritional Studies and Diet · Consumer Attitudes and Food Labeling · Nutrition, Genetics, and Disease
- Keywords
- Medicine, Meta-analysis, Stroke (engine), Confidence interval, Relative risk, Prospective cohort study, Meta-regression, Internal medicine, Cohort study, Dietary Cholesterol, Lower risk, Cholesterol
- MeSH
- humans, coronary disease, cholesterol, dietary, diet, risk factors, eggs, adolescent, adult, aged, aged, 80 and over, middle aged, female, male, stroke
5 authors
From US
- Dominik D. Alexander · correspondingMichigan United
- Paula E. MillerMichigan United
- Ashley J. VargasMichigan United
- Douglas L. Weed
- Sarah S. CohenMichigan United
Abstract
The possible relationship between dietary cholesterol and cardiac outcomes has been scrutinized for decades. However, recent reviews of the literature have suggested that dietary cholesterol is not a nutrient of concern. Thus, we conducted a meta-analysis of egg intake (a significant contributor to dietary cholesterol) and risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) and stroke. A comprehensive literature search was conducted through August 2015 to identify prospective cohort studies that reported risk estimates for egg consumption in association with CHD or stroke. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to generate summary relative risk estimates (SRREs) for high vs low intake and stratified intake dose-response analyses. Heterogeneity was examined in subgroups where sensitivity and meta regression analyses were conducted based on increasing egg intake. A 12% decreased risk (SRRE = 0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81-0.97) of stroke was observed in the meta-analysis of 7 studies of egg intake (high vs low; generally 1/d vs 2 = 7.50). A nonstatistically significant SRRE of 0.97 (95% CI, 0.88-1.07, p-H = 0.67, I2 = 0.00) was observed in the meta-analysis of 7 studies of egg consumption and CHD. No clear dose-response trends were apparent in the stratified intake meta-analyses or the meta regression analyses. Based on the results of this meta-analysis, consumption of up to one egg daily may contribute to a decreased risk of total stroke, and daily egg intake does not appear to be associated with risk of CHD. Key Teaching Points: • The role of egg consumption in the risk of stroke and coronary heart disease has come under scrutiny over many years. • A comprehensive meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies that reported risk estimates for egg consumption in association with CHD or stroke was performed on the peer-reviewed epidemiologic literature through August 2015. • Overall, summary associations indicate that intake of up to 1 egg daily may be associated with reduced risk of total stroke. • Overall, summary associations show no clear association between egg intake and increased or decreased risk of CHD. • Eggs are a relatively low-cost and nutrient-dense whole food that provides a valuable source of protein, essential fatty acids, antioxidants, choline, vitamins, and minerals.
Abstract via Europe PMC. Copyright remains with the authors or publisher.
Community trust
Loading…
How much do you trust this study's findings?
Comments
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inSomething wrong here?
Flag this study if its information, labels or funding look wrong. An editor reviews every flag.
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inEducational information about published research. Not medical advice, and not a recommendation to start or stop anything.