Dietary Green Leafy Vegetables and Cardiovascular Disease Risk: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Kaewpradup T, Chusak C, Chantarasinlapin P, Shetty S, Nguyen V, Guan Z, Coorey R, Stephan BCM, Adisakwattana S, Siervo M
Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 0 citations
How it was studied
- Design
- Meta-analysis (classified by our AI screen)
- Studied in
- People
- Main outcome
- Clinical events such as disease or death
- Intake measured by
- Not stated
Who paid for it
- Funding
- Independent funding
- University or hospital
- Curtin University of Technology
- University or hospital
- Chulalongkorn University
- Government
- National Research Council of Thailand
- Grants
- National Research Council of Thailand (N42A680622)
Based on 3 listed funder(s) and full-text disclosure statement.
Publication
- Published
- 2026-07-29 · Foods · vol. 15 · issue 15 · p. 2678
- Publisher
- Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
- Cited
- 0 citations · more than 51% of similar papers · 0.0× the field average
- References
- 59 works
- Access
- Open access (journal) · CC-BY
- Research areas
- Seed and Plant Biochemistry · Antioxidant Activity and Oxidative Stress · Phytochemicals and Antioxidant Activities
- Keywords
- Observational study, Meta-analysis, Randomized controlled trial, Epidemiology, Disease, Confidence interval, Relative risk
10 authors
From TH, AU
- Thanaporn KaewpradupChulalongkorn University; Curtin University
- Charoonsri ChusakChulalongkorn University; Curtin University
- Praew ChantarasinlapinChulalongkorn University; Curtin University
- Saisha ShettyCurtin University
- Van Hoang NguyenCurtin University
- Zhongyang GuanCurtin University
Abstract
Background
Epidemiological evidence suggests that green leafy vegetables (GLV) may reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). However, the relationship remains incompletely understood due to inconsistencies between findings from observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Therefore, a comprehensive synthesis of evidence across study designs is warranted. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the association between GLV consumption and CVD risk, as well as related cardiovascular risk factors, including blood pressure (BP) and endothelial function, based on evidence from observational studies and RCTs.
Methods
Systematic searches of PubMed, EMBASE, APA PsycInfo, and Ovid databases were conducted through 30 October 2024. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-E tool for observational studies and the RoB 2 tool for RCTs. Pooled relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for observational studies, whereas mean differences (MDs) were used for RCT outcomes. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed, and heterogeneity was evaluated using Cochran's Q and I2 statistics.
Results
Higher GLV consumption was significantly associated with a reduced risk of CVD in observational studies (RR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.82-0.97; p 2 = 80%; Q = 55.88) and lower CVD mortality (RR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.62-0.97; p 2 = 80%; Q = 4.93). However, pooled analysis of seven RCTs showed no significant improvement in vascular function following GLV intake (MD: -0.37; 95% CI: -1.90 to 1.16; p = 0.64; I2 = 88%; Q = 18.59). No significant associations were observed between GLV consumption and hypertension risk in observational studies, nor were significant effects found on systolic or diastolic BP in RCTs.
Conclusions
Higher GLV consumption may be associated with a lower risk of CVD in observational studies. However, evidence from RCTs remains limited and inconclusive. Further well-designed clinical trials are needed to confirm these associations, establish dose-response relationships, and elucidate the mechanisms underlying the cardioprotective effects of GLVs to support evidence-based dietary recommendations.
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.