4.3 Review

Consumption of vegetables and fruit and the risk of inflammatory bowel disease: a meta-analysis

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MEG.0000000000000330

关键词

Crohn's disease; fruit; inflammatory bowel disease; ulcerative colitis; vegetables

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To date, associations between consumption of vegetables and fruit and the risk of inflammatory bowel disease have been a controversial subject. Therefore, we carried out a meta-analysis to evaluate the associations. A comprehensive search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure to identify all relevant studies. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) from random-effects or fixed-effects models were calculated. Publication bias was estimated using Egger's test and the funnel plot. A total of 14 case-control studies were included in this meta-analysis. On the basis of the highest versus the lowest analysis, consumption of vegetables was associated inversely with the risk of ulcerative colitis (UC) (OR = 0.71, 95% CI 0.58-0.88, n= 9 studies), but not with Crohn's disease (CD) (OR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.40-1.09, n = 8 studies). Higher consumption of fruit was associated inversely with the risk of UC (OR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.49-0.96, n = 8 studies) and CD (OR = 0.57, 95% CI 0.44-0.74, n = 10 studies). For intake of vegetables and the risk of CD, subgroup analysis showed a significant association for studies carried out in Europe (OR = 0.36, 95% CI 0.23-0.57), but not in Asia (OR = 1.00, 95% CI 0.50-2.03). No significant publication bias was found for the analysis of intake of vegetables and the risk of UC, intake of fruit and the risk of UC, and intake of vegetables and the risk of CD. This meta-analysis indicates that consumption of vegetables and fruit might be associated inversely with the risk of UC and CD, and the results need to be further confirmed. Copyright (c) 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.3
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