Funded in part by American Bakers Association
Whole Grains, Refined Grains, and Cancer Risk: A Systematic Review of Meta-Analyses of Observational Studies
Gaesser GA
Nutrients · 103 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
- Systematic review (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
- Industry funded
- Industry group
- American Bakers Association
- Authors
- At least one author declares a financial tie to industry
Based on 1 listed funder(s) and full-text disclosure statement.
Publication
- Published
- 2020-12-07 · Nutrients · vol. 12 · issue 12 · p. 3756
- Publisher
- Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
- Cited
- 154 citations · more than 95% of similar papers · 3.4× the field average
- Impact
- Top 10% most cited in its field
- References
- 187 works
- Access
- Open access (journal) · CC-BY
- Research areas
- Food composition and properties · Nutritional Studies and Diet · Phytase and its Applications
- Keywords
- Meta-analysis, Medicine, Refined grains, Systematic review, Confidence interval, Relative risk, Whole grains, Colorectal cancer, Cancer, Internal medicine, Cohort study, MEDLINE, Food science, Biology
- MeSH
- humans, neoplasms, diet, risk factors, case-control studies, cohort studies, adult, aged, middle aged, female, male, meta-analysis as topic, edible grain, observational studies as topic, whole grains, diet, healthy
1 author
From US
- Glenn A. Gaesser · correspondingArizona State University
Abstract
PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched for meta-analyses that provided risk estimates (±95% confidence intervals) for associations between intakes of whole and refined grains and risk of total and site-specific cancer. The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Only meta-analyses that included whole grains and refined grains as separate food groups, and not as part of dietary patterns, were included. A total of 17 publications were identified that met inclusion criteria. Within these, results from a total of 54 distinct meta-analyses were reported for whole grains and 5 meta-analyses for refined grains. For total cancer mortality, 7 meta-analyses of cohort studies indicated that whole grain intake was associated with 6% to 12% lower risk in comparison of highest vs. lowest intake groups, and 3% to 20% lower risk for doses ranging from 15 to 90 g/day. For site-specific cancers, meta-analyses indicated that whole grain intake was consistently associated with lower risks of colorectal, colon, gastric, pancreatic, and esophageal cancers. Limited data were available for refined grains, with only 4 publications providing risk estimates, and only 1 of the meta-analyses included more than 3 studies. High intake of refined grains was associated with increased risk of colon and gastric cancer. By contrast, in the only dose-response meta-analysis, each 90 g/day consumption of refined grains was associated with a 6% lower risk of total cancer. In addition to the limited number of published meta-analyses on refined grains, results were also weakened due to the fact that refined grains were frequently defined to include both staple grain foods and indulgent grain foods, and the majority of studies included in the meta-analyses provided no specific definition of refined grains. Overall, meta-analyses of cohort and case-control studies consistently demonstrate that whole grain intake is associated with lower risk of total and site-specific cancer, and support current dietary recommendations to increase whole grain consumption. By contrast, the relationship between refined grain intake and cancer risk is inconclusive.
Abstract via Europe PMC. Copyright remains with the authors or publisher (CC BY).
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.