ArticleEye (London, England)2023
Fruit and vegetable intake and the risk of cataract: insights from the UK Biobank study.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Influence of Diet, Dietary Products and Vitamins on Age-Related Cataract Incidence: A Systematic Review.Nutrients · 2023Pooled it
- Sleep, physical activity, sedentary behavior, and risk of cataract: a cross-sectional and prospective study from UK Biobank.BMC medicine · 2025Article
- Comparison of Cost-Utility, Visual Acuity, and Humanistic Outcomes of Cataract Surgery Performed in the United States Versus International Outreach Campaigns.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Dietary-related characteristics and cataract risk: evidence from a mendelian randomization study.Experimental biology and medicine (Maywood, N.J.) · 2025Article
- Sex-specific social, lifestyle, and physical health risk factors in cataracts development.Eye (London, England) · 2024Article
- Predictors and consequences of visual trajectories in Chinese older population: A growth mixture model.Journal of global health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeA prospective cohort study to investigate the association between fruit and vegetable (F&V) intake and the risk of cataract.
methodsWe included 72,160 participants who were free of cataract at baseline from the UK Biobank. Frequency and type of F&V intake were assessed using a web-based 24 h dietary questionnaire from 2009 to 2012. Development of cataract during the follow-up was defined by self-report or hospital inpatient records up to 2021. Cox proportional regression models were used to estimate the association between F&V intake and incident cataract.
resultsDuring a mean follow-up of 9.1 years, 5753 participants developed cataract with a corresponding incidence of 8.0%. After adjusting for multiple demographic, medical and lifestyle covariates, higher intake of F&V were associated with a lower risk of cataract (≥6.5 vs. <2 servings/week: hazards ratio [HR]: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.76 to 0.89; P < 0.0001). Regarding specific types, significant reduced risk of cataract was found for higher intake of legumes (P = 0.0016), tomatoes (≥5.2 vs. <1.8 servings/week: HR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.88 to 1.00), and apple and pear (>7 vs. <3.5 servings/week: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.83 to 0.94; P < 0.0001), but not for cruciferous vegetables, green leafy vegetables, berry, citrus fruit or melon. Smokers were found to benefit more from F&V intake than former and never smokers. Men also could benefit more from higher vegetable intake than women.
conclusionsMore F&V intake, especially legumes, tomatoes, apple, and pear, was associated with a lower risk of cataract in this UK Biobank cohort.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.