Cited by 601Nutritional Studies and DietNutrition, Health, and Society StudiesAgriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 141 of the 142 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 23 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies ,

Open access

Abstract

Background: Suboptimal diet is one of the most important factors in preventing early death and disability worldwide.Objective: The aim of this meta-analysis was to synthesize the knowledge about the relation between intake of 12 major food groups, including whole grains, refined grains, vegetables, fruits, nuts, legumes, eggs, dairy, fish, red meat, processed meat, and sugar-sweetened beverages, with risk of all-cause mortality.Design: We conducted a systematic search in PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar for prospective studies investigating the association between these 12 food groups and risk of all-cause mortality. Summary RRs and 95% CIs were estimated with the use of a random effects model for high-intake compared with low-intake categories, as well as for linear and nonlinear relations. Moreover, the risk reduction potential of foods was calculated by multiplying the RR by optimal intake values (serving category with the strongest association) for risk-reducing foods or risk-increasing foods, respectively.Results: With increasing intake (for each daily serving) of whole grains (RR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.89, 0.95), vegetables (RR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.95, 0.98), fruits (RR: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.92, 0.97), nuts (RR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.69, 0.84), and fish (RR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.88, 0.98), the risk of all-cause mortality decreased; higher intake of red meat (RR: 1.10; 95% CI: 1.04, 1.18) and processed meat (RR: 1.23; 95% CI: 1.12, 1.36) was associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality in a linear dose-response meta-analysis. A clear indication of nonlinearity was seen for the relations between vegetables, fruits, nuts, and dairy and all-cause mortality. Optimal consumption of risk-decreasing foods results in a 56% reduction of all-cause mortality, whereas consumption of risk-increasing foods is associated with a 2-fold increased risk of all-cause mortality.Conclusion: Selecting specific optimal intakes of the investigated food groups can lead to a considerable change in the risk of premature death.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3945/ajcn.117.153148

Cites

141 of 141 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

59 Own result · 16 Not checked yet · 8 Own method · 3 No basis given · 1 Own interpretation

Verify all 23 references — free account

Show all 56 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 21
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 14
31 of 31
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Up-to-date evidence on the association between all-cause mortality and legumes, eggs, and sugar-sweetened beverages had not been synthesized before this review.

    “Up-to-date evidence about the association of all-cause mortality risk with consumption of legumes, eggs, and sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) has not been synthesized.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Meta-analyses rarely assess the quality of evidence.

    “Moreover, metaanalyses rarely assess the quality of evidence.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The associations between food group intakes and all-cause mortality observed in the included studies are causal.

    “In conclusion, an optimal intake of whole grains, vegetables, fruits, nuts, legumes, and fish, as well as reduced consumption of red and processed meats and SSBs, can lead to an important decrease-by w80%-in the relative risk of premature death when compared with intakes always from the highest risk category.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The effects of optimal intakes of different food groups on mortality risk are independent and combine multiplicatively (or additively) to produce the stated approximately 80% reduction.

    “In conclusion, an optimal intake of whole grains, vegetables, fruits, nuts, legumes, and fish, as well as reduced consumption of red and processed meats and SSBs, can lead to an important decrease-by w80%-in the relative risk of premature death when compared with intakes always from the highest risk category.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The pooled estimates from the included study populations are applicable to the general population to which the conclusion refers.

    “In conclusion, an optimal intake of whole grains, vegetables, fruits, nuts, legumes, and fish, as well as reduced consumption of red and processed meats and SSBs, can lead to an important decrease-by w80%-in the relative risk of premature death when compared with intakes always from the highest risk category.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Food frequency questionnaire data are sufficiently valid to rank individuals by usual dietary intake for the purpose of this meta-analysis.

    “Dietary information of most of the included studies derives from food frequency questionnaires, which represent a subjective approximation of past dietary behaviors rather than an assessment of absolute intakes.”
6 of 6

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.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

1 of 1

Citations

Cites

Show all 142 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Wang, 2014, Fruit and vegetable consumption and mortality from all causes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer: systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies, BMJ, 349, g4490, 10.1136/bmj.g4490 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–300 of 601

Metadata

Authors
Schwingshackl, L., Schwedhelm, C., Hoffmann, G., Lampousi, A.-M., Knüppel, S., Iqbal, K., Bechthold, A., Schlesinger, S., & Boeing, H.
Affiliations
  • German Institute of Human Nutrition (DE)
  • University of Vienna (AT)
  • Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf (DE)
Corresponding author
Schwingshackl, Lukas
Venue
The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-06
Volume
105
Issue
6
Pages
1462-1473
ISSN
0002-9165 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2609492761
Cited by
600
References
142
Citations by year
2026: 52 · 2025: 62 · 2024: 62 · 2023: 66 · 2022: 78 · 2021: 89 · 2020: 54 · 2019: 72 · 2018: 54 · 2017: 11
FWCI
8.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Informationszentrum Lebenswissenschaften (ZB MED) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Nutritional Studies and Diet
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Nutrition, Health, and Society Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
Keywords
all-cause mortality, food groups, whole grains, refined grains, vegetables, fruits, nuts, Fabaceae, eggs, dairy products, fish, red meat, processed meat, sugar-sweetened beverages, diet and mortality, dose-response relationship, nonlinear dose-response relationship, dietary recommendations
MeSH terms
Cause of Death, Diet, Feeding Behavior, Humans, Risk Factors, Risk Reduction Behavior

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-07, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-07 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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