4.7 Article

Consumption of fruit, but not vegetables, may reduce risk of gastric cancer: Results from a meta-analysis of cohort studies

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 50, 期 8, 页码 1498-1509

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2014.02.009

关键词

Gastric cancer; Meta-analysis; Incidence; Mortality

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and aims: Quantification of the association between consumption of fruit and vegetables and risk of gastric cancer (GC) is controversial. We aimed to conduct a meta-analysis of cohort studies to evaluate the associations. Methods: Eligible studies published up to 31st August 2013 were retrieved via both computer searches of PubMed and EMBASE and a manual review of references. Random-effects models were used to calculate summary relative risk (SRR). Heterogeneity among studies was assessed using Cochran's Q and I-2 statistics. Results: A total of 17 articles (24 studies), were included in this meta-analysis. There were >2.4 million individuals (6632 GC events) with a median follow-up of 10 years. Based on the high versus low analysis, consumption of fruit, but not vegetables, may reduce risk of gastric cancer (fruit: SRR = 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.83-0.98, P-heterogeneity = 0.450; vegetable: SRR = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.88-1.06, P-heterogeneity = 0.150). Meta regression analysis suggested that outcome (incidence versus mortality) and study quality (high versus low) contributed significantly to heterogeneity. The same results were also shown in the linear dose-response analysis (per 100-g/day) (fruit: SRR = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.91-0.99; vegetable: SRR = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.91-1.01). Significant inverse associations emerged in non-linear models for consumption of fruit (Pnon-linearity = 0.04), but not for consumption of vegetables (Pnon-linearity = 0.551). Conclusions: Findings from this meta-analysis indicate a significant protective effect for the consumption of fruit on GC risk, but not for the consumption of vegetables. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.7
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