4.7 Review

Skipping breakfast and prevalence of overweight and obesity in Asian and Pacific regions: A meta-analysis

Journal

PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
Volume 53, Issue 4-5, Pages 260-267

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2011.08.030

Keywords

Breakfast; Obesity; Cross-sectional studies; Meta-analysis; Asia; Oceania

Funding

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) [20300227, 202965]
  2. Japan Cardiovascular Research Foundation
  3. Ministry of Health, labor and Welfare, Japan
  4. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [20300227] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective. In Western countries, skipping breakfast is associated with a high prevalence of overweight and obesity. This meta-analysis aimed to determine if the same relationship exists in Asian and Pacific regions. Methods. A systematic literature search was performed for observational studies using a cross-sectional design that examined the relationship between frequency of eating breakfast and overweight or obesity. Odds ratios (ORs) for overweight or obesity were pooled with a variance-based method. Results. Nineteen studies (93,108 total participants and 19,270 overweight or obese cases) were included. The pooled OR 95% confidence intervals (CI)] of overweight or obesity for the lowest vs. highest category of breakfast frequency was 1.75 [1.57 to 1.95] (P<0.001). Between-study heterogeneity in the association's strength was highly significant (I-squared = 36.4%, P<0.001), although a positive OR was shown in all but one included study. However, no study characteristics could be identified to explain the heterogeneity. Conclusion. This meta-analysis suggests that a positive association between skipping breakfast and overweight and obesity is globally observed regardless of cultural diversity among countries. Promoting the eating of breakfast in all populations may be beneficial. (c) 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available