ReviewJournal of cancer prevention2025
Fruit and Vegetable Intake in Relation to Lung Cancer Risk: A Systematic Review and Dose-response Meta-analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies.
Review in Journal of cancer prevention, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of lung cancer diagnosis on patient lifestyle and physical activity.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026Observational
- Dietary risk factors for lung cancer: an umbrella review of systematic review and meta-analysis.Translational cancer research · 2026Review
- Observational
- The potential utility of in-silico approach in identifying phytochemicals against various targets for the management of lung cancer.Discover oncology · 2026Review
- Triangulating associations between fruit intake and lung cancer risk: evidence from GBD estimates, Mendelian randomization, and real-world validation.The oncologist · 2026Article
- Association between planetary health diet index and lung cancer risk in 106,542 participants: a prospective cohort study.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
- Parent-Child Associations of Eating Habits According to Domains of Parental Physical Activity (EPI-Family Health Study).Nutrients · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this study was to consolidate the mounting evidence related to the association between fruit and vegetable intake and lung cancer risk by conducting a systematic review of prospective studies and a dose-response meta-analysis. A systematic search was conducted on major online databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science) from inception up to January 2024. The exposures included daily intake of total fruits and vegetables (FVs), vegetables, fruits, and their subclasses (including cruciferous and green leafy vegetables, and citrus fruits). The main outcome was lung cancer and its subclasses (incidence and mortality). Out of 31,819 records initially retrieved, 41 eligible studies were included. Significant inverse associations were observed between lung cancer and daily consumption of total FVs (risk ratios [RR]: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.74-0.90), vegetables (RR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.83-0.91), fruits (RR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.72-0.85), cruciferous vegetables (RR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.75-0.91), green leafy vegetables (RR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.76-0.94), and citrus fruits (RR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.73-0.88). Non-linear dose-response associations were observed regarding lung cancer and all of the exposures, except for cruciferous vegetables. The consumption of FVs may decrease the risk of lung cancer incidence and mortality. The type of lung cancer, biological sex of individuals, and smoking status can alter this association.
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.