Systematic review2020Industry fundedOpen access

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

Author industry tiesIndustry funded

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?

0 · not at all10 · completely

Comments

Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign in

Something 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 in

Educational information about published research. Not medical advice, and not a recommendation to start or stop anything.