Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26770452›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of clinical and experimental medicine2015

Association between vegetables consumption and the risk of age-related cataract: a meta-analysis.

Guoqiang Huang, Laiwei Wu, Lianghui Qiu, Jiangfeng Lai, Zhengying Huang, Li'an Liao

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of clinical and experimental medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Guoqiang HuangDepartment of Ophthalmology, Meizhou People's Hospital China.
Laiwei WuDepartment of Ophthalmology Center, Huizhou Municipal Central Hospital China.
Lianghui QiuDepartment of Ophthalmology, Meizhou People's Hospital China.
Jiangfeng LaiDepartment of Ophthalmology, Meizhou People's Hospital China.
Zhengying HuangDepartment of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Meizhou People's Hospital China.
Li'an LiaoDepartment of Invasive Technology, Meizhou People's Hospital China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundQuantification of the association between the consumption of vegetables and risk of age-related cataract is still conflicting. We therefore conducted a meta-analysis to summarize the evidence from epidemiological studies of vegetables consumption with the risk of age-related cataract.

methodsPertinent studies were identified by searching of PubMed and Web of Science. The random effect model was used to combine the results. Meta-regression and subgroups analyses were used to explore potential sources of between-study heterogeneity. Publication bias was estimated using Egger's regression asymmetry test.

resultsFinally, 9 articles involving 6,464 cataract cases and 112,447 participants were included in this meta-analysis. Pooled results suggested that highest vegetables consumption level compared with lowest level was inverse with the risk of age-related cataract [summary relative risk (RR) = 0.723, 95% CI = 0.594-0.879, I(2) = 72.8%]. The associations were also significant in America [summary RR = 0.872, 95% CI = 0.791-0.960] and Europe [summary RR = 0.507, 95% CI = 0.416-0.619], but not in the other population. No publication bias was found.

conclusionsHigher vegetables consumption might be inversely associated with risk of cataract.

Indexed as

age-related cataractmeta-analysisVegetables

Identifiers

PMID26770452
PMCPMC4694352

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.