4.4 Review

Comparison of human bone mineral densities in subjects on plant-based and omnivorous diets: a systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

ARCHIVES OF OSTEOPOROSIS
卷 16, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER LONDON LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s11657-021-00955-0

关键词

Plant-based diets; Bone mineral density; Bone health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A systematic review and meta-analysis of 17 cross-sectional studies revealed that individuals on plant-based diets have lower bone mineral density at the lumbar spine, femoral neck, and whole-body compared to omnivores. Both vegetarians and vegans also exhibited lower BMDs than omnivores.
BackgroundThe increased consumption of plant-based diets has encouraged studies of bone mineral density (BMD). The present systematic review and meta-analysis compared the effects of plant-based and omnivorous diets on BMD.MethodsWe searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, and the Web of Science to July 1, 2020. We used the mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs to compare group outcomes. We compared the lumbar spine, femoral neck, and whole-body BMDs of those on plant-based and omnivorous diets. We performed subgroup analyses by various clinical characteristics. Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. All statistical analyses were performed using Review Manager version 5.2.ResultsA total of 17 cross-sectional studies including 13,888 patients were identified. The pooled results indicated that those on plant-based diets (compared to omnivores) exhibited lower BMDs at the lumbar spine (MD-0.04; 95% CI-0.06 to-0.02; P<0.0001) and femoral neck (MD-0.04; 95% CI-0.05 to-0.02; P<0.00001), and a reduced whole-body BMD (MD-0.03; 95% CI-0.06 to-0.01; P=0.0009). Both vegetarians and vegans exhibited lower lumbar spine, femoral neck, and whole-body BMDs than omnivores.ConclusionsPlant-based diets were associated with lower BMDs than those of an omnivore population. Plant-based diets may compromise overall bone health; prospective research is required.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据