Nutrient Intake and Status in Adults Consuming Plant-Based Diets Compared to Meat-Eaters: A Systematic Review

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Health authorities increasingly recommend a more plant-based diet, rich in fruits, vegetables, pulses, whole grains and nuts, low in red meat and moderate in dairy, eggs, poultry and fish which will be beneficial for both health and the environment. A systematic review of observational and intervention studies published between 2000 and January 2020 was conducted to assess nutrient intake and status in adult populations consuming plant-based diets (mainly vegetarian and vegan) with that of meat-eaters. Mean intake of nutrients were calculated and benchmarked to dietary reference values. For micronutrient status, mean concentrations of biomarkers were calculated and compared across diet groups. A total of 141 studies were included, mostly from Europe, South/East Asia, and North America. Protein intake was lower in people following plant-based diets compared to meat-eaters, but well within recommended intake levels. While fiber, polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA), folate, vitamin C, E and magnesium intake was higher, eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) intake was lower in vegetarians and vegans as compared to meat-eaters. Intake and status of vitamin B12, vitamin D, iron, zinc, iodine, calcium and bone turnover markers were generally lower in plant-based dietary patterns compared to meat-eaters. Vegans had the lowest vitamin B12, calcium and iodine intake, and also lower iodine status and lower bone mineral density. Meat-eaters were at risk of inadequate intakes of fiber, PUFA, α-linolenic acid (ALA), folate, vitamin D, E, calcium and magnesium. There were nutrient inadequacies across all dietary patterns, including vegan, vegetarian and meat-based diets. As plant-based diets are generally better for health and the environment, public health strategies should facilitate the transition to a balanced diet with more diverse nutrient-dense plant foods through consumer education, food fortification and possibly supplementation.

Related collections

Most cited references 74

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range

Xiang Wan, Wenqian Wang, Jiming Liu … (2014)

Background In systematic reviews and meta-analysis, researchers often pool the results of the sample mean and standard deviation from a set of similar clinical trials. A number of the trials, however, reported the study using the median, the minimum and maximum values, and/or the first and third quartiles. Hence, in order to combine results, one may have to estimate the sample mean and standard deviation for such trials. Methods In this paper, we propose to improve the existing literature in several directions. First, we show that the sample standard deviation estimation in Hozo et al.’s method (BMC Med Res Methodol 5:13, 2005) has some serious limitations and is always less satisfactory in practice. Inspired by this, we propose a new estimation method by incorporating the sample size. Second, we systematically study the sample mean and standard deviation estimation problem under several other interesting settings where the interquartile range is also available for the trials. Results We demonstrate the performance of the proposed methods through simulation studies for the three frequently encountered scenarios, respectively. For the first two scenarios, our method greatly improves existing methods and provides a nearly unbiased estimate of the true sample standard deviation for normal data and a slightly biased estimate for skewed data. For the third scenario, our method still performs very well for both normal data and skewed data. Furthermore, we compare the estimators of the sample mean and standard deviation under all three scenarios and present some suggestions on which scenario is preferred in real-world applications. Conclusions In this paper, we discuss different approximation methods in the estimation of the sample mean and standard deviation and propose some new estimation methods to improve the existing literature. We conclude our work with a summary table (an Excel spread sheet including all formulas) that serves as a comprehensive guidance for performing meta-analysis in different situations. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2288-14-135) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

0 comments Cited 2614 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Global burden of 87 risk factors in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019

Christopher J L Murray, Aleksandr Y Aravkin, Peng Zheng … (2022)

Summary Background Rigorous analysis of levels and trends in exposure to leading risk factors and quantification of their effect on human health are important to identify where public health is making progress and in which cases current efforts are inadequate. The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019 provides a standardised and comprehensive assessment of the magnitude of risk factor exposure, relative risk, and attributable burden of disease. Methods GBD 2019 estimated attributable mortality, years of life lost (YLLs), years of life lived with disability (YLDs), and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) for 87 risk factors and combinations of risk factors, at the global level, regionally, and for 204 countries and territories. GBD uses a hierarchical list of risk factors so that specific risk factors (eg, sodium intake), and related aggregates (eg, diet quality), are both evaluated. This method has six analytical steps. (1) We included 560 risk–outcome pairs that met criteria for convincing or probable evidence on the basis of research studies. 12 risk–outcome pairs included in GBD 2017 no longer met inclusion criteria and 47 risk–outcome pairs for risks already included in GBD 2017 were added based on new evidence. (2) Relative risks were estimated as a function of exposure based on published systematic reviews, 81 systematic reviews done for GBD 2019, and meta-regression. (3) Levels of exposure in each age-sex-location-year included in the study were estimated based on all available data sources using spatiotemporal Gaussian process regression, DisMod-MR 2.1, a Bayesian meta-regression method, or alternative methods. (4) We determined, from published trials or cohort studies, the level of exposure associated with minimum risk, called the theoretical minimum risk exposure level. (5) Attributable deaths, YLLs, YLDs, and DALYs were computed by multiplying population attributable fractions (PAFs) by the relevant outcome quantity for each age-sex-location-year. (6) PAFs and attributable burden for combinations of risk factors were estimated taking into account mediation of different risk factors through other risk factors. Across all six analytical steps, 30 652 distinct data sources were used in the analysis. Uncertainty in each step of the analysis was propagated into the final estimates of attributable burden. Exposure levels for dichotomous, polytomous, and continuous risk factors were summarised with use of the summary exposure value to facilitate comparisons over time, across location, and across risks. Because the entire time series from 1990 to 2019 has been re-estimated with use of consistent data and methods, these results supersede previously published GBD estimates of attributable burden. Findings The largest declines in risk exposure from 2010 to 2019 were among a set of risks that are strongly linked to social and economic development, including household air pollution; unsafe water, sanitation, and handwashing; and child growth failure. Global declines also occurred for tobacco smoking and lead exposure. The largest increases in risk exposure were for ambient particulate matter pollution, drug use, high fasting plasma glucose, and high body-mass index. In 2019, the leading Level 2 risk factor globally for attributable deaths was high systolic blood pressure, which accounted for 10·8 million (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 9·51–12·1) deaths (19·2% [16·9–21·3] of all deaths in 2019), followed by tobacco (smoked, second-hand, and chewing), which accounted for 8·71 million (8·12–9·31) deaths (15·4% [14·6–16·2] of all deaths in 2019). The leading Level 2 risk factor for attributable DALYs globally in 2019 was child and maternal malnutrition, which largely affects health in the youngest age groups and accounted for 295 million (253–350) DALYs (11·6% [10·3–13·1] of all global DALYs that year). The risk factor burden varied considerably in 2019 between age groups and locations. Among children aged 0–9 years, the three leading detailed risk factors for attributable DALYs were all related to malnutrition. Iron deficiency was the leading risk factor for those aged 10–24 years, alcohol use for those aged 25–49 years, and high systolic blood pressure for those aged 50–74 years and 75 years and older. Interpretation Overall, the record for reducing exposure to harmful risks over the past three decades is poor. Success with reducing smoking and lead exposure through regulatory policy might point the way for a stronger role for public policy on other risks in addition to continued efforts to provide information on risk factor harm to the general public. Funding Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.