Cited by 215Nutritional Studies and DietMental Health Treatment and AccessNutrition, Health and Food Behavior

Fruit and vegetable consumption and risk of depression: accumulative evidence from an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiological studies

Open access
Saghafian, Faezeh, Malmir, Hanieh, Saneei, Parvane, Milajerdi, Alireza, Larijani, Bagher, Esmaillzadeh, Ahmad·2018·British Journal of Nutrition

Abstract

Findings from observational studies investigating the association between fruit and vegetable consumption and risk of depression were inconsistent. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarise available data on the association between fruit and vegetable intake and depression. A systematic literature search of relevant reports published in Medline/PubMed, ISI (Web of Science), SCOPUS and Google Scholar until Oct 2017 was conducted. Data from 27 publications (sixteen cross-sectional, nine cohort and two case–control studies) on fruit, vegetables and/or total fruit and vegetable consumption in relation to depression were included in the systematic review. A total of eighteen studies that reported relative risks (RR), hazard ratios or OR for the relationship were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled RR for depression in the highest v. the lowest category of fruit intake was 0·83 (95 % CI 0·71, 0·98) in cohort studies and 0·76 (95 % CI 0·63, 0·92) in cross-sectional studies. Consumption of vegetables was also associated with a 14 % lower risk of depression (overall RR=0·86; 95 % CI 0·75, 0·98) in cohort studies and a 25 % lower risk of depression (overall RR=0·75; 95 % CI 0·62, 0·91) in cross-sectional studies. Moreover, an inverse significant association was observed between intake of total fruit and vegetables and risk of depression (overall RR=0·80; 95 % CI 0·65, 0·98) in cross-sectional studies. In a non-linear dose–response association, we failed to find any significant association between fruit or vegetable intake and risk of depression (fruit (cross-sectional studies): Pnon-linearty=0·12; vegetables (cross-sectional studies): Pnon-linearty<0·001; (cohort studies) Pnon-linearty=0·97). Meta-regression of included observational studies revealed an inverse linear association between fruit or vegetable intake and risk of depression, such that every 100-g increased intake of fruit was associated with a 3 % reduced risk of depression in cohort studies (RR=0·97; 95 % CI 0·95, 0·99). With regard to vegetable consumption, every 100-g increase in intake was associated with a 3 % reduced risk of depression in cohort studies (RR=0·97; 95 % CI 0·95, 0·98) and 5 % reduced odds in cross-sectional studies (RR=0·95; 95 % CI 0·91, 0·98). This meta-analysis of observational studies provides further evidence that fruit and vegetable intake was protectively associated with depression. This finding supports the current recommendation of increasing fruit and vegetable intake to improve mental health.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0007114518000697

Cites

64 of 64 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Saghafian, F., Malmir, H., Saneei, P., Milajerdi, A., Larijani, B., & Esmaillzadeh, A.
Affiliations
  • Tehran University of Medical Sciences (IR)
  • Isfahan University of Medical Sciences (IR)
  • Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinical Sciences Institute (IR)
Corresponding author
Esmaillzadeh, Ahmad
Venue
British Journal of Nutrition
Published
2018-05-15
Volume
119
Issue
10
Pages
1087-1101
ISSN
  • 0007-1145 (ISSN-L)
  • 1475-2662
OpenAlex
W2804395016
Cited by
215
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 10
FWCI
3.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal Of Nutrition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • Iran National Science Foundation
  • Tehran University of Medical Sciences and Health Services
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Nutritional Studies and Diet
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Nutrition, Health and Food Behavior
Keywords
fruit consumption, vegetable consumption, depression, depression risk, dietary intake, dose-response relationship, nonlinear relationship, meta-regression, observational studies, pooled relative risk, mental health
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Cross-Sectional Studies, Depression, Diet, Female, Fruit, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Risk Factors, Vegetables, Cohort Studies, Odds Ratio, Case-Control Studies, MEDLINE

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review