| Literature DB >> 24968103 |
Marcin Barański1, Dominika Srednicka-Tober1, Nikolaos Volakakis1, Chris Seal2, Roy Sanderson3, Gavin B Stewart1, Charles Benbrook4, Bruno Biavati5, Emilia Markellou6, Charilaos Giotis7, Joanna Gromadzka-Ostrowska8, Ewa Rembiałkowska8, Krystyna Skwarło-Sońta9, Raija Tahvonen10, Dagmar Janovská11, Urs Niggli12, Philippe Nicot13, Carlo Leifert1.
Abstract
Demand for orEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24968103 PMCID: PMC4141693 DOI: 10.1017/S0007114514001366
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Br J Nutr ISSN: 0007-1145 Impact factor: 3.718
Fig. 1Summary of the search and selection protocols used to identify papers included in the meta-analyses. * Review carried out by one reviewer; † Data extraction carried out by two reviewers. CF, comparison of matched farms; BS, basket studies; EX, controlled field experiments.
Fig. 2Meta-analysis strategy used for the identification of data sets in the literature review. * References are summarised in Table S2 (available online). RD, risk difference.
Fig. 3Results of the standard unweighted and weighted meta-analyses for antioxidant activity, plant secondary metabolites with antioxidant activity, macronutrients, nitrogen compounds and cadmium (data reported for all crops and crop-based foods included in the same analysis). MPD, mean percentage difference; CONV, conventional food samples; ORG, organic food samples; n, number of data points included in the meta-analyses; FRAP, ferric reducing antioxidant potential; ORAC, oxygen radical absorbance capacity; TEAC, Trolox equivalent antioxidant capacity; SMD, standardised mean difference. Values are standardised mean differences, with 95 % confidence intervals represented by horizontal bars. * P value < 0·05 indicates a significant difference between ORG and CONV. † Numerical values for MPD and standard errors are given in Table S9 (available online). ‡ Ln ratio = Ln(ORG/CONV × 100 %). § Heterogeneity and the I 2 statistic. ∥ Data reported for different compounds within the same chemical group were included in the same meta-analyses. ¶ Outlying data points (where the MPD between ORG and CONV was more than fifty times greater than the mean value including the outliers) were removed. ○, MPD calculated using data included in the standard unweighted meta-analysis; , MPD calculated using data included in the standard weighted meta-analysis; ◆, SMD.
Fig. 4Results of the standard unweighted and weighted meta-analyses for different crop types/products for antioxidant activity, plant secondary metabolites with antioxidant activity, macronutrients, nitrogen and cadmium. MPD, mean percentage difference; CONV, conventional food samples; ORG, organic food samples; n, number of data points included in the meta-analyses; SMD, standardised mean difference. Values are standardised mean differences, with 95 % confidence intervals represented by horizontal bars. * P value < 0·05 indicates a significant difference between ORG and CONV. † Numerical values for MPD and standard errors are given in Table S10 (available online). ‡ For parameters for which n≤ 3 for specific crops/products, results obtained in the weighted meta-analyses are not shown. § Ln ratio = Ln(ORG/CONV × 100 %). ∥ Data reported for different compounds within the same chemical group were included in the same meta-analyses. ¶ Outlying data points (where the MPD between ORG and CONV was more than fifty times greater than the mean value including the outliers) were removed. ○, MPD calculated using data included in the standard unweighted meta-analysis; , MPD calculated using data included in the standard weighted meta-analysis; ◆, SMD.
Fig. 5Results of the standard weighted meta-analysis comparing ln OR for the frequency of occurrence of pesticide residues (percentage of positive samples) in organic and conventional crops. A mixed-effect model with crop/product group as a moderator was used. OR, ln OR for each product group (◆); ORG, organic food samples; CONV, conventional food samples; n, number of data points included in the meta-analyses. Values are odds ratios, with 95 % confidence intervals represented by horizontal bars. * P value < 0·05 indicates a significant difference between ORG and CONV. † Crops/product groups for which n≤ 3 were removed from the plots. ‡ Compound foods.
GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessments, Development and Evaluation) assessment of the strength of evidence for standard weighted meta-analysis for parameters included in Fig. 3 (Standardised mean difference values (SMD) and 95 % confidence intervals)
| Parameters | SMD | 95 % CI | Effect magnitude | Inconsistency | Precision | Publication bias | Overall reliability |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Antioxidant activity | 1·11 | 0·43, 1·79 | Moderate | Medium | Poor | None | Moderate |
| FRAP | 0·59 | − 0·89, 2·06 | Moderate | Low | Poor | Medium | Moderate |
| ORAC | 1·92 | − 0·86, 4·71 | Large | Low | Poor | Strong | Low |
| TEAC | 0·25 | 0·02, 0·48 | Small | Medium | High | Medium | Good |
| Phenolic compounds (total) | 0·52 | 0·00, 1·05 | Small | Medium | Moderate | None | Moderate |
| Flavonoids (total) | 1·64 | 0·09, 3·19 | Large | Medium | Poor | Medium | Moderate |
| Phenolic acids (total) | 0·81 | 0·18, 1·44 | Small | Low | Moderate | Strong | Low |
| Phenolic acids | 0·59 | 0·11, 1·07 | Small | Medium | Moderate | None | Moderate |
| Chlorogenic acid | 1·58 | − 0·32, 3·49 | Large | High | Poor | Medium | Low |
| Flavanones | 4·76 | 0·54, 8·98 | Large | Medium | Moderate | None | Moderate |
| Stilbenes | 0·74 | 0·19, 1·28 | Small | Low | Moderate | Medium | Moderate |
| Flavones and flavonols | 1·74 | 1·21, 2·28 | Large | Medium | High | None | Good |
| Flavones | 0·95 | 0·39, 1·51 | Moderate | Medium | Moderate | None | Moderate |
| Flavonols | 1·97 | 1·31, 2·64 | Large | Medium | High | None | Good |
| Quercetin | 0·55 | − 0·58, 1·69 | Small | Low | Poor | Medium | Low |
| Rutin | 1·10 | − 0·31, 2·50 | Moderate | Medium | Poor | None | Low |
| Kaempferol | 1·34 | 0·19, 2·50 | Moderate | Low | Poor | None | Low |
| Anthocyanins (total) | 1·60 | 0·59, 2·62 | Large | Low | Moderate | Medium | Moderate |
| Anthocyanins | 3·81 | 1·53, 6·09 | Large | Medium | High | Medium | Moderate |
| Carotenoids (total) | 7·98 | − 6·22, 22·18 | Large | Medium | Poor | Strong | Low |
| Carotenoids | 0·47 | − 0·13, 1·07 | Small | Medium | Poor | None | Low |
| Xanthophylls | 1·06 | 0·18, 1·94 | Moderate | Medium | Poor | Medium | Low |
| Lutein | 0·51 | − 0·27, 1·29 | Small | Medium | Poor | Medium | Low |
| Ascorbic acid | 0·33 | 0·06, 0·60 | Small | Medium | Moderate | None | Moderate |
| Vitamin E | − 0·23 | − 0·46, 0·00 | Small | Low | Moderate | None | Moderate |
| Carbohydrates (total) | 1·54 | 0·10, 2·99 | Large | Low | Poor | Medium | Low |
| Carbohydrates | 0·46 | 0·00, 0·91 | Small | Medium | Moderate | None | Moderate |
| Sugars (reducing) | 0·21 | − 0·23, 0·65 | Small | Low | Moderate | None | Moderate |
| Protein (total) | − 3·01 | − 5·18, − 0·84 | Large | Medium | Moderate | Medium | Moderate |
| Amino acids | − 0·82 | − 1·14, − 0·50 | Small | Medium | High | Medium | Moderate |
| DM | 1·31 | − 0·65, 3·28 | Moderate | Medium | Poor | Medium | Low |
| Fibre | − 0·42 | − 0·76, − 0·07 | Small | Low | Moderate | None | Moderate |
| N | − 0·88 | − 1·59, − 0·17 | Moderate | Low | Moderate | Medium | Low |
|
| − 0·50 | − 1·73, 0·73 | Small | Medium | Poor | Medium | Low |
|
| − 0·11 | − 0·38, 0·16 | Small | Low | High | None | Moderate |
| Cd | − 1·45 | − 2·52, − 0·39 | Moderate | Medium | Moderate | Medium | Moderate |
FRAP, ferric reducing antioxidant potential; ORAC, oxygen radical absorbance capacity; TEAC, Trolox equivalent antioxidant capacity.
Study quality was considered low because of high risks of bias and potential for confounding. However, we considered large effects to mitigate this sensu GRADE; large effects were defined as >20 %, moderate effects as 10–20 % and small as < 10 %.
Inconsistency was based on the measure of heterogeneity and the consistency of effect direction sensu GRADE.
Precision was based on the width of the pooled effect CI and the extent of overlap in the substantive interpretation of effect magnitude sensu GRADE.
Publication bias was assessed using visual inspection of funnel plots, Egger tests, two fail-safe number tests, and trim and fill (see online supplementary Table S13). Overall publication bias was considered high when indicated by two or more methods, moderate when indicated by one method, and low when indicated by none of the methods. The overall quality of evidence was then assessed across domains as in standard GRADE appraisal.
Outlying data pairs (where the mean percentage difference between the organic and conventional food samples was over fifty times higher than the mean value including outliers) were removed.