Fruit and vegetable intake and bones: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Juliana E Brondani, Fabio V Comim, Liziane M Flores, Lígia Araújo Martini, Melissa O Premaor
Author Information
  1. Juliana E Brondani: Pós-graduação em Farmacologia, Health Sciences Center, Federal University of Santa Maria, Santa Maria, Brazil.
  2. Fabio V Comim: Pós-graduação em Farmacologia, Health Sciences Center, Federal University of Santa Maria, Santa Maria, Brazil.
  3. Liziane M Flores: Departamento de Saúde Coletiva, Health Sciences Center, Federal University of Santa Maria, Santa Maria, Brazil.
  4. Lígia Araújo Martini: Faculdade de Saúde Pública, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
  5. Melissa O Premaor: Pós-graduação em Farmacologia, Health Sciences Center, Federal University of Santa Maria, Santa Maria, Brazil. ORCID

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although intake of fruits and vegetables seemed to have a protective effect on bone metabolism, its effect on fractures remains uncertain.
METHODS: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies (PROSPERO: CRD42016041462) was performed. RCTs and cohort studies that evaluated the combined intake of fruits and vegetables in men and women aged over 50 years were included. We considered fractures as a primary outcome measure. Changes in bone markers were considered as secondary outcomes. The search strategy included the following descriptors: fruit, vegetables, vegetable products, bone and bones, bone fractures, postmenopausal osteoporosis, and osteoporosis. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were the databases used. The appraisal of the studies was performed by two independent reviewers, and discussed and agreed upon by both examiners. The data extracted from the RCTs and cohort studies were summarized separately. The risks of fractures were combined across studies using random models. Bone resorption marker (CTx) was summarized with standardized mean differences. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) method was used to evaluate the strength of recommendations.
RESULTS: Of the 1,192 studies screened, 13 articles were included in the systematic review and 10 were included in the pooled analysis (6 cohort studies and 4 RCTs). The six cohort studies included in the meta-analysis included a population of 225,062. The pooled hazard ratio (HR) (95% confidence interval (CI)) of the hip in five studies was 0.92 (0.87, 0.98). Its heterogeneity was moderate (I2 = 55.7%, p = 0.060), GRADE (⊕⊕⊕O). Two cohort studies evaluated the risk of any fracture; the HR was 0.90 (95% CI: 0.86-0.96), with aheterogeneity of 24.9% (p = 0.249, GRADE (⊕⊕⊕O)). There was no association between the bone resorption marker CTx and 3 months of fruit and vegetable intake evaluated by four RCTs, GRADE (⊕⊕O O).
CONCLUSION: There was an association between the increase of at least one serving of fruits and vegetables per day and decreases in the risk of fractures. The level of evidence for this association is moderate.

References

  1. Clin Biochem. 2012 Aug;45(12):907-19 [PMID: 22330940]
  2. Sci Rep. 2018 May 18;8(1):7838 [PMID: 29777162]
  3. Osteoporos Int. 2013 Apr;24(4):1295-305 [PMID: 22976577]
  4. J Am Coll Nutr. 2013;32(4):251-63 [PMID: 24024770]
  5. Osteoporos Int. 2017 Sep;28(9):2541-2556 [PMID: 28631236]
  6. Int J Epidemiol. 2017 Jun 1;46(3):1029-1056 [PMID: 28338764]
  7. J Bone Miner Res. 2016 Sep;31(9):1743-52 [PMID: 27061845]
  8. Epidemiol Health. 2014 Jul 22;36:e2014009 [PMID: 25078382]
  9. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Apr;64(4):401-6 [PMID: 21208779]
  10. Nutrients. 2015 Apr 08;7(4):2499-517 [PMID: 25856221]
  11. Stroke. 2014 Jun;45(6):1613-9 [PMID: 24811336]
  12. Am J Clin Nutr. 2002 Jul;76(1):245-52 [PMID: 12081842]
  13. Eur J Epidemiol. 2010 Sep;25(9):603-5 [PMID: 20652370]
  14. Am J Clin Nutr. 2004 Jan;79(1):155-65 [PMID: 14684412]
  15. Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992). 2016 Jul;62(4):368-76 [PMID: 27437684]
  16. Am J Clin Nutr. 2017 Jan;105(1):203-211 [PMID: 27903522]
  17. Osteoporos Int. 2011 Jun;22(6):1681-93 [PMID: 21165601]
  18. Osteoporos Int. 2017 Dec;28(12):3301-3314 [PMID: 28916915]
  19. BMJ. 2014 Jul 29;349:g4490 [PMID: 25073782]
  20. Am J Clin Nutr. 2008 Aug;88(2):465-74 [PMID: 18689384]
  21. J Nutr. 2011 Aug;141(8):1516-23 [PMID: 21653576]
  22. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2018 May 24;58(8):1260-1270 [PMID: 28605204]
  23. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2011 Jan;65(1):132-9 [PMID: 20948558]
  24. Sci Rep. 2016 Jan 25;6:19783 [PMID: 26806285]
  25. J Am Diet Assoc. 2009 Mar;109(3):414-21 [PMID: 19248856]
  26. Am J Clin Nutr. 1999 Apr;69(4):727-36 [PMID: 10197575]
  27. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017 Jan;96(4):e5780 [PMID: 28121926]
  28. Lancet. 2019 Jan 26;393(10169):364-376 [PMID: 30696576]
  29. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2015 Apr;16(4):309-15 [PMID: 25523283]
  30. Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab. 2017 May-Aug;14(2):209-216 [PMID: 29263736]
  31. Calcif Tissue Int. 2014 Jun;94(6):580-9 [PMID: 24687523]
  32. Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2012 Jun 05;8(7):379-89 [PMID: 22664836]
  33. Osteoporos Int. 2015 Jun;26(6):1825-30 [PMID: 25731807]
  34. J Dairy Sci. 2011 Nov;94(11):5249-62 [PMID: 22032348]
  35. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009 Jun;89(6):1864-76 [PMID: 19403636]
  36. Nutrition. 2014 May;30(5):511-7 [PMID: 24698344]
  37. Eur J Nutr. 2018 Feb;57(1):61-73 [PMID: 27557817]
  38. N Engl J Med. 2016 Jan 21;374(3):254-62 [PMID: 26789873]
  39. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2013 Oct;68(10):1243-51 [PMID: 23902935]
  40. Osteoporos Int. 2003 Jun;14(5):418-28 [PMID: 12730762]
  41. Am J Clin Nutr. 2011 Jan;93(1):192-9 [PMID: 21068350]
  42. Osteoporos Int. 2014 Jan;25(1):223-33 [PMID: 23716039]
  43. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2015 Apr;69(4):442-8 [PMID: 25351648]
  44. Lancet. 2011 Apr 9;377(9773):1276-87 [PMID: 21450337]
  45. J Bone Miner Res. 2015 Jun;30(6):976-84 [PMID: 25294687]

MeSH Term

Feeding Behavior
Fractures, Bone
Fruit
Humans
Incidence
Osteoporosis
Vegetables

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0studies0cohortincludedbonefracturesRCTsintakevegetablesGRADEfruitssystematicreviewevaluatedvegetable=associationeffectperformedcombinedconsideredfruitosteoporosisusedsummarizedresorptionmarkerCTxpooledmeta-analysisHR95%moderatep⊕⊕⊕OriskBACKGROUND:AlthoughseemedprotectivemetabolismremainsuncertainMETHODS:randomizedcontrolledtrialsPROSPERO:CRD42016041462menwomenaged50yearsprimaryoutcomemeasureChangesmarkerssecondaryoutcomessearchstrategyfollowingdescriptors:productsbonespostmenopausalPubMedEmbaseCochraneLibrarydatabasesappraisaltwoindependentreviewersdiscussedagreeduponexaminersdataextractedseparatelyrisksacrossusingrandommodelsBonestandardizedmeandifferencesGradingRecommendationsAssessmentDevelopmentEvaluationmethodevaluatestrengthrecommendationsRESULTS:1192screened13articles10analysis64sixpopulation225062hazardratioconfidenceintervalCIhipfive928798heterogeneityI2557%060Twofracture90CI:86-096aheterogeneity249%2493monthsfour⊕⊕OOCONCLUSION:increaseleastoneservingperdaydecreaseslevelevidenceFruitbones:

Similar Articles

Cited By