4.6 Review

Dietary carbohydrate intake and risk of bone fracture: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

Journal

PUBLIC HEALTH
Volume 181, Issue -, Pages 102-109

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.puhe.2019.12.001

Keywords

Carbohydrate; Fracture; Bone; Meta-analysis

Funding

  1. Tehran University of Medical Sciences [97-01-161-38108]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Despite growing evidence for the association between other dietary macronutrients and bone health, limited and inconsistent knowledge is available regarding carbohydrate intake. In this systematic review and meta- analysis, we purposed to clarify and synthesize the knowledge about the relation between carbohydrate intake and the risk of fracture. Study design: Systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Methods: In this study, PubMed and Scopus were used to conduct a comprehensive search for articles published up to September 2018. The screening was done independently by two authors. Pooled effect sizes were calculated using fixed and random effect models for the highest versus lowest intake categories. The dose-response nature of the relationship was also investigated. Results: No association was observed between carbohydrate intake and the risk of fracture in high versus low intake meta-analysis (overall relative risk [RR]: 1.24; 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 0.84-1.84; P = 0.27) with moderate heterogeneity (I-2 = 57.7%, P (heterogeneity) = 0.05). Moreover, there was no relationship between carbohydrate intake and the risk of fracture in both linear (overall RR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.94-1.05; P = 0.88) (I-2 = 68.1%, P (heterogeneity) = 0.48) and nonlinear (Pnon-linearity = 0.14) models. Conclusion: No association was observed between carbohydrate intake and the risk of fracture. (c) 2020 The Royal Society for Public Health. Published by Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available