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 citations
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
- Independent funding
- Government
- National Natural Science Foundation of China
- Government
- Liaoning Revitalization Talents Program
- University or hospital
- Shengjing Hospital
- Grants
- 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)
Based on 3 listed funder(s).
Publication
- Published
- 2022-01-01 · Food Funct · vol. 13 · issue 8 · pp. 4247–4259
- Publisher
- Royal Society of Chemistry
- Cited
- 33 citations · more than 69% of similar papers · 0.7× the field average
- References
- 73 works
- Access
- Paywalled
- Research areas
- Genomics, phytochemicals, and oxidative stress
- Keywords
- 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 authors
From CN
- Yi-Zi LiChina Medical University
- Zhiyong YangChina Medical University
- Ting‐Ting Gong · correspondingChina Medical University
- Yashu LiuChina Medical University
- Fang-Hua LiuChina Medical University
- Zhao-Yan WenChina Medical University
Abstract
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.
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.