| Literature DB >> 28396858 |
Owais Khawaja1, Hemindermeet Singh1, Faraz Luni1, Ameer Kabour1, Syed S Ali1, Mohammed Taleb1, Hafeezuddin Ahmed1, John Michael Gaziano2, Luc Djoussé3.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Heart failure (HF) remains a major health problem affecting 5.7 million adults in USA. Data on the association of egg consumption with incident HF have been inconsistent. We, therefore, conducted this meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies to assess the relation of egg consumption with incident HF in the general population.Entities:
Keywords: diet; eggs; epidemiology; heart failure; nutrition
Year: 2017 PMID: 28396858 PMCID: PMC5367008 DOI: 10.3389/fnut.2017.00010
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Nutr ISSN: 2296-861X
Figure 1Search strategy results.
Baseline characteristics of study included in meta-analysis.
| First author, publication year, country | Study name | Study size | Age range (years) | Follow-up period (years) | Dietary assessment | Exposure categories | No of subjects (lowest vs highest category) | No of cases (lowest vs highest category) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Djousse (men), 2008, USA | Physician’s health study | 21,275 | 53–57 | 20.4 | Semi quantitative FFQ | Six groups: <1/week, 1/week, 2–4/week, 5–6/week, 1/day, and 2+/day | 4,527 vs 264 | 206 vs 25 |
| Nettleton (men/women), 2008, USA | Atherosclerosis risk in communities | 15,143 | 54–57 | 13.3 | Semi quantitative FFQ | Nine groups: ≤1/month to ≥6/day. Analyzed as per 1 SD difference in dietary pattern score or per 1 daily serving difference in food group intake | 13,013 vs 1,140 | 1,140 total (differential data not available) |
| Larson (men), 2015, Sweden | Cohort of Swedish men | 37,766 | 59–61 | 13.0 | Semi quantitative FFQ | Four groups: 0–3/month, 1–2/week, 3–6/week, and 1+/day | 17,635 vs 1,007 | 724 vs 72 |
| Larson (women), 2015, Sweden | Swedish mammography cohort | 32,805 | 61–63 | 13.0 | Semi quantitative FFQ | Four groups: 0–3/month, 1–2/week, 3–6/week, and 1+/day | 14,756 vs 682 | 560 vs 37 |
FFQ, food frequency questionnaire.
Figure 2Pooled relative risk for egg consumption and incident heart failure across prospective cohort studies.
Sensitivity analysis.
| Included studies | Relative risk (95% confidence interval) | |
|---|---|---|
| Excluding studies with women vs all included prospective cohort studies | 1.38 (1.12, 1.71) vs 1.25 (1.12, 1.39) | 0.414 |
| Excluding studies with men vs all included prospective cohort studies | 1.06 (0.74, 1.52) vs 1.25 (1.12, 1.39) | 0.389 |
| Excluding studies with <20 years of follow-up vs all included prospective cohort studies | 1.64 (1.08, 2.49) vs 1.25 (1.12, 1.39) | 0.217 |
| Excluding non-US studies vs all included prospective cohort studies | 1.32 (1.04, 1.69) vs 1.25 (1.12, 1.39) | 0.687 |
| Excluding US studies vs all included prospective cohort studies | 1.22 (0.99, 1.49) vs 1.25 (1.12, 1.39) | 0.205 |
Figure 3Funnel plot for pooled analysis for cohort studies. There is no evidence of publication bias seen.