Article Text

other Versions

Fruit and vegetable consumption and the risk of type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and dose–response meta-analysis of prospective studies
  1. Rine Elise Halvorsen1,
  2. Mathilde Elvestad1,
  3. Marianne Molin1,2 and
  4. Dagfinn Aune2,3,4,5
  1. 1Department of Nursing and Health Promotion, Faculty of Health Science, Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway
  2. 2Department of Nutrition, Bjørknes University College, Oslo, Norway
  3. 3Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK
  4. 4Department of Endocrinology, Morbid Obesity and Preventive Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
  5. 5Unit of Cardiovascular and Nutritional Epidemiology, Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
  1. Correspondence to Dr Dagfinn Aune, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, London, UK; d.aune{at}imperial.ac.uk

Abstract

Background The association between intake of fruit and vegetables and their subtypes, and the risk of type 2 diabetes has been investigated in several studies, but the results have been inconsistent.

Objective We conducted an updated systematic review and dose–response meta-analysis of prospective studies on intakes of fruit and vegetables and fruit and vegetable subtypes and the risk of type 2 diabetes.

Design PubMed and Embase databases were searched up to 20 October 2020. Prospective cohort studies of fruit and vegetable consumption and type 2 diabetes mellitus were included. Summary relative risks (RRs) and 95% CIs were estimated using a random effects model.

Results We included 23 cohort studies. The summary RR for high versus low intake and per 200 g/day were 0.93 (95% CI: 0.89 to 0.98, I2=0%, n=10 studies) and 0.98 (95% CI: 0.95 to 1.01, I2=37.8%, n=7) for fruit and vegetables combined, 0.93 (95% CI: 0.90 to 0.97, I2=9.3%, n=20) and 0.96 (95% CI: 0.92 to 1.00, I2=68.4%, n=19) for fruits and 0.95 (95% CI: 0.88 to 1.02, I2=60.4%, n=17) and 0.97 (95% CI: 0.94 to 1.01, I2=39.2%, n=16) for vegetables, respectively. Inverse associations were observed for apples, apples and pears, blueberries, grapefruit and grapes and raisins, while positive associations were observed for intakes of cantaloupe, fruit drinks, fruit juice, brussels sprouts, cauliflower and potatoes, however, most of these associations were based on few studies and need further investigation in additional studies.

Conclusions This meta-analysis found a weak inverse association between fruit and vegetable intake and type 2 diabetes risk. There is indication of both inverse and positive associations between intake of several fruit and vegetables subtypes and type 2 diabetes risk, however, further studies are needed before firm conclusions can be made.

  • Diabetes mellitus

Data availability statement

Data are available on reasonable request. Analytical datasets and Stata do-files are available from DA (d.aune@imperial.ac.uk) on reasonable request.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Data availability statement

Data are available on reasonable request. Analytical datasets and Stata do-files are available from DA (d.aune@imperial.ac.uk) on reasonable request.

View Full Text

Supplementary materials

  • Supplementary Data

    This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

Footnotes

  • REH and ME are joint first authors.

  • Contributors ME and REH had full access to the data, conducted the statistical analyses, wrote the first draft of the manuscript and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. DA contributed towards the statistical analysis, and all authors contributed to the revision of the manuscript.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests No, there are no competing interests.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.