Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29141965›Full record

SynthesisAdvances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.)2017

Food Groups and Risk of Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Dose-Response Meta-Analysis of Prospective Studies.

Lukas Schwingshackl, Carolina Schwedhelm, Georg Hoffmann, Sven Knüppel, Khalid Iqbal, Violetta Andriolo, Angela Bechthold, Sabrina Schlesinger, Heiner Boeing

Erratum issuedOpen access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 196 papers, 31 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
196citing papers in PubMed, 31 pooled it
22.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

196 citing papers in PubMed, 31 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 344 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

136 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Lukas SchwingshacklDepartment of Epidemiology, German Institute of Human Nutrition Potsdam-Rehbruecke, Nuthetal, Germany.
Carolina SchwedhelmDepartment of Epidemiology, German Institute of Human Nutrition Potsdam-Rehbruecke, Nuthetal, Germany.
Georg HoffmannDepartment of Nutritional Sciences, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Sven KnüppelDepartment of Epidemiology, German Institute of Human Nutrition Potsdam-Rehbruecke, Nuthetal, Germany.
Khalid IqbalDepartment of Epidemiology, German Institute of Human Nutrition Potsdam-Rehbruecke, Nuthetal, Germany.
Violetta AndrioloDepartment of Epidemiology, German Institute of Human Nutrition Potsdam-Rehbruecke, Nuthetal, Germany.
Angela BechtholdGerman Nutrition Society, Bonn, Germany.
Sabrina SchlesingerInstitute for Biometry and Epidemiology, German Diabetes Center at Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Heiner BoeingDepartment of Epidemiology, German Institute of Human Nutrition Potsdam-Rehbruecke, Nuthetal, Germany.
German Institute of Human Nutrition · DEDeutsches Diabetes-Zentrum e.V. · DEUniversity of Vienna · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to summarize the evidence on the relation of the intakes of 12 major food groups, including whole grains, refined grains, vegetables, fruits, nuts, legumes, eggs, dairy, fish, red meat, processed meat, and sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) with the risk of hypertension. PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched systematically until June 2017 for prospective studies having quantitatively investigated the above-mentioned foods. We conducted meta-analysis on the highest compared with the lowest intake categories and linear and nonlinear dose-response meta-analyses to analyze the association. Summary RRs and 95% CIs were estimated by using a random-effects model. Overall, 28 reports were included in the meta-analysis. An inverse association for the risk of hypertension was observed for 30 g whole grains/d (RR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.87, 0.98), 100 g fruits/d (RR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.96, 0.99), 28 g nuts/d (RR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.45, 1.08), and 200 g dairy/d (RR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.94, 0.97), whereas a positive association for 100 g red meat/d (RR: 1.14; 95% CI: 1.02, 1.28), 50 g processed meat/d (RR: 1.12; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.26), and 250 mL SSB/d (RR: 1.07; 95% CI: 1.04, 1.10) was seen in the linear dose-response meta-analysis. Indication for nonlinear relations of the intakes of whole grains, fruits, fish, and processed meats with the risk of hypertension was detected. In summary, this comprehensive dose-response meta-analysis of 28 reports identified optimal intakes of whole grains, fruits, nuts, legumes, dairy, red and processed meats, and SSBs related to the risk of hypertension. These findings need to be seen under the light of very-low to low quality of meta-evidence. However, the findings support the current dietary guidelines in the prevention of hypertension.

Indexed as

DietEatingFoodFruitHumansHypertensionLinear ModelsMeatNutrition PolicyNutsProspective StudiesRisk FactorsVegetablesdietdose-responsefood groupshypertensionmeta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID29141965
PMCPMC5683007
OpenAlexW2775056265

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.