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 accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
59 Own result · 16 Not checked yet · 8 Own method · 3 No basis given · 1 Own interpretation
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, no evidence of a nonlinear doseresponse association was found (P-nonlinearity = 0.11; n = 3 studies)”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Refined grains
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The risk of all-cause mortality decreased by w16% with increasing intake of legumes up to w150 g/d”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Legumes
plaincorrelationaln = 53,085 ·- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“An inverse association was observed for the highest compared with lowest legume intake categories (RR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.93, 1.00;I 2 = 48%; P-heterogeneity = 0.01)”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Legumes
plaincorrelationaln = 53,085 ·- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A strong inverse association was observed for the highest compared with the lowest nut intake category (RR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.74, 0.86; I 2 = 84%; P-heterogeneity , 0.001)”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Nuts
boostedcorrelationaln = 80,204- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“An inverse association was observed for the high intake compared with the low intake (RR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.90, 0.95; I 2 = 75%; P-heterogeneity , 0.001)”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Vegetables
plaincorrelationaln = 121,067- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No evidence of a nonlinear doseresponse association was observed (P-nonlinearity = 0.39; n = 4 studies)”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Legumes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“but not for each additional daily 50 g (RR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.90, 1.01;I 2 = 48%; P-heterogeneity = 0.09; n = 6)”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Legumes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A positive association was observed for the highest compared with the lowest egg intake category (RR: 1.06; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.12;I 2 = 71%; P-heterogeneity , 0.001)”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Eggs
plaincorrelationaln = 30,352 ·- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“An inverse association was observed (RR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.89, 0.94; I 2 = 77%; P-heterogeneity , 0.001)”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Fruit
plaincorrelationaln = 120,033- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When we compared extreme categories, an inverse association between all-cause mortality and whole-grain intake was observed, with an indication for high heterogeneity between studies (RR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.84, 0.92; I 2 = 91%; P-heterogeneity , 0.001)”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Whole grains
plaincorrelationaln = 121,141 ·- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No association was observed for the high compared with the low intake (RR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.98, 1.07;I 2 = 94%; P-heterogeneity , 0.001)”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Dairy
plainn = 126,759- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Each additional daily 100 g of fruits was inversely associated with mortality risk (RR: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.92, 0.97; I 2 = 82%; P-heterogeneity , 0.001; n = 17)”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Fruit
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“or for each additional daily 30 g (RR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.97, 1.01;I 2 = 7%; P-heterogeneity = 0.36; n = 4)”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Refined grains
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and dose-response analyses (RR/100 g: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.95, 0.98; I 2 = 67%; P-heterogeneity , 0.001; n = 17)”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Vegetables
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and for each additional daily 28 g (RR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.69, 0.84; I 2 = 82%; P-heterogeneity , 0.001; n = 16)”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Nuts
plaincorrelationaln = 80,204 ·- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and for each additional daily 50 g (RR: 1.15; 95% CI: 0.99, 1.34;I 2 = 87%; P-heterogeneity , 0.001; n = 5)”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Eggs
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No association was observed for the highest compared with the lowest refined grain intake category (RR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.94, 1.05;I 2 = 26%; P-heterogeneity = 0.26)”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Refined grains
plainn = 11,034- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Each additional daily 30 g of whole grains was inversely associated with mortality risk (RR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.89, 0.95; I 2 = 80%; P-heterogeneity , 0.001; n = 11)”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Whole grains
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Findings including studies with a low risk of bias suggest a smaller inverse association between fruits (n = 4) and nuts (n = 5) and all-cause mortality in the linear dose-response metaanalysis.”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Risk of bias
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Not consuming these foods would reduce the risk of all-cause mortality by about 52% [calculated by 1 2 ð1ORR increased Þ].”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Summary across food groups
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No association between all-cause mortality and SSBs was observed in the analysis of high compared with low intake (RR: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.97, 1.06;I 2 = 78%; P-heterogeneity , 0.01)”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Sugar-sweetened beverages
plainn = 81,407- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Nuts (28 g/d) | 1.00 0.85 (0.82, 0.89) | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | |”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Strengths and limitations
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Food frequency questionnaire data are sufficiently valid to rank individuals by usual dietary intake for the purpose of this meta-analysis.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and for each additional daily 100 g (RR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.88, 0.98; I 2 = 53%; P-heterogeneity , 0.01; n = 19)”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Fish
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The risk of all-cause mortality increased by w7% with increasing intake of SSBs up to w250 mL/d”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Sugar-sweetened beverages
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Each additional daily 50 g of processed meat was associated with a risk of all-cause mortality (RR: 1.23; 95% CI: 1.12, 1.36;I 2 = 94%; P-heterogeneity , 0.001; n = 7)”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Processed meat
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We found a clear indication for nonlinear relations between vegetables, fruits, nuts, and dairy with all-cause mortality.”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > DISCUSSION
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Eggs (55 g/d) | 1.00 1.07 (1.01, 1.15) | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | |”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Strengths and limitations
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Food frequency questionnaire data are sufficiently valid to rank individuals by usual dietary intake for the purpose of this meta-analysis.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, all of the studies included that investigated the association between eggs and all-cause mortality were rated with an unclear or high risk of bias.”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Risk of bias
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Each additional daily 100 g of red meat was positively associated with risk of all-cause mortality (RR: 1.10; 95% CI: 1.04, 1.18;I 2 = 92%; P-heterogeneity , 0.001; n = 10)”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Red meat
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The risk decreased by 10% with increasing intake of #200 g fish/d”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Fish
plaincorrelationaln = 157,688 ·- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A positive association was observed (RR: 1.21; 95% CI: 1.16, 1.26;I 2 = 56%; P-heterogeneity = 0.03)”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Processed meat
plaincorrelationaln = 143,572- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Substantial heterogeneity was found with respect to the analyzed population size, follow-up duration, baseline age, and food consumption.”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Strengths and limitations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We found no evidence of a nonlinear dose-response association (P-nonlinearity = 0.09; n = 19 studies)”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Fish
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We found no evidence of a nonlinear dose-response association (P-nonlinearity = 0.66; n = 3 studies)”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Sugar-sweetened beverages
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“or for each additional daily 200 g of dairy products (RR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.93, 1.03;I 2 = 96%; P-heterogeneity , 0.001; n = 16)”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Dairy
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We could also calculate that a consumption of risk-increasing food-2 servings red meat/d (170 g; RR = 1.35), 4 servings processed meat/d (120 g; RR = 1.35), 1 serving eggs/d (55 g; RR = 1.07), and 1 serving SSBs/d (250 mL; RR = 1.07)-is associated with a 2-fold increased risk (RR increased ) compared with no”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Summary across food groups
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overall, for most food groups, high levels of statistical heterogeneity persisted in subgroup analyses.”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Strengths and limitations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The results varied little by methodologic assumption, including only studies with a low risk of bias”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Risk of bias
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“An inverse association was observed for the highest compared with the lowest fish intake category (RR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.92, 0.98; I 2 = 51%; P-heterogeneity , 0.001)”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Fish
plaincorrelationaln = 157,688- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Fruit (80 g/d) | 1.00 0.94 (0.93, 0.96) 0.91 (0.89, 0.93) 0.90 (0.88, 0.93) 0.91 (0.88, 0.93) 0.92 (0.89, 0.94) 0.92 (0.89, 0.95) | | | | | | |”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Strengths and limitations
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Food frequency questionnaire data are sufficiently valid to rank individuals by usual dietary intake for the purpose of this meta-analysis.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Another important limitation was the indication of small study effects such as publication bias in the analyses of vegetables, fruits, nuts, dairy products, and red meat.”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Strengths and limitations
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Optimal consumption (the smallest serving with significant results and no further substantial change in risk or no further data for larger amounts) of risk-decreasing foods [3 servings whole grains/d (RR = 0.79), 3 servings vegetables/d (RR = 0.89), 3 servings fruit/d (RR = 0.90), 1 serving nuts/d (RR = 0.85), 1 serving legumes/d (RR = 0.90), and 2 servings fish/d (RR = 0.90)] results in a 56% red”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Summary across food groups
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No evidence of a nonlinear dose-response association was found (P-nonlinearity = 0.30; n = 10 studies)”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Red meat
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A positive association was observed (RR: 1.10; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.22;I 2 = 93%; P-heterogeneity , 0.001)”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Red meat
plaincorrelationaln = 177,655 ·- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“or the linear dose-response meta-analysis (RR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.91, 1.18;I 2 = 71%; P-heterogeneity = 0.02; n = 4)”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Sugar-sweetened beverages
plainn = 81,407- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Sugar-sweetened beverages | 1.00 1.07 (1.01, 1.14) | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | |”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Strengths and limitations
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Food frequency questionnaire data are sufficiently valid to rank individuals by usual dietary intake for the purpose of this meta-analysis.
In the paper
“A meta-analysis of nearly 5 million subjects reported an 8% reduction of overall mortality for each 2-point increase in adherence to the Mediterranean diet (139).”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [139] Sofi, 2014, Mediterranean diet and health status: an updated meta-analysis and a proposal for a literature-based adherence score, Public Health Nutr source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Moreover, in a recent meta-analysis high adherence to the Healthy Eating Index was associated with a 22% lower risk of mortality ( 9)”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [9] Schwingshackl, 2015, Diet quality as assessed by the Healthy Eating Index, the Alternate Healthy Eating Index, the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension score, and health outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies, J Acad Nutr Diet source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The detrimental effects observed for SSBs may be partly attributed to impairments of the otherwise working regulation of hunger and satiety (138).”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [138] DiMeglio, 2000, Liquid versus solid carbohydrate: effects on food intake and body weight, Int J Obes Relat Metab source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“A high-quality diet comprising abundant amounts of whole grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts, and fish is one of the most important factors in preventing early death and disability worldwide (2).”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [2] Lim, 2012, A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions, 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010, Lancet source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Strengths and limitations
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The associations between food group intakes and all-cause mortality observed in the included studies are causal.
- Rests on an assumption: 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.
- Rests on an assumption: The pooled estimates from the included study populations are applicable to the general population to which the conclusion refers.
- Rests on an assumption: Food frequency questionnaire data are sufficiently valid to rank individuals by usual dietary intake for the purpose of this meta-analysis.
In the paper
“Hence, our results may reveal higher accuracy than is actually available (140).”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Strengths and limitations
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [140] Drewnowski, 2001, Diet image: a new perspective on the food-frequency questionnaire, Nutr Rev
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“People with a high intake of whole grains, fruits, vegetables, fish, nuts, or legumes might have different lifestyles or a different socioeconomic status from those with lower intakes, representing important confounders (141).”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Strengths and limitations
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [141] Darmon, 2008, Does social class predict diet quality?, Am J Clin Nutr source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“these 12 food groups are the focus because most diet quality indexes or scores are based on them (9,12,13), as previously reported (14)”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Study selection
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [9] Schwingshackl, 2015, Diet quality as assessed by the Healthy Eating Index, the Alternate Healthy Eating Index, the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension score, and health outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies, J Acad Nutr Diet source
- Not checked yetcites [12] Schwingshackl, 2015, Adherence to Mediterranean diet and risk of cancer: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies, Cancer Med source
- Not checked yetcites [13] Schwingshackl, 2014, Adherence to Mediterranean diet and risk of cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies, Int J Cancer source
- Not checked yetcites [14] Schwingshackl, 2016, Food groups and risk of chronic disease: a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis of cohort studies, Syst Rev source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Strengths and limitations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, our main results were confirmed by sensitivity analyses including only studies with a low risk of bias [adjusted for important lifestyle factors (smoking, physical activity, and BMI)].”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Strengths and limitations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 21
- Probably not a substantial claim. 14
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Evidence exists of a nonlinear dose-response association (P-nonlinearity , 0.001; n = 13 studies).The risk of all-cause mortality decreased by w17% with increasing intake of nuts up to w15-20 g/d.No benefit was apparent when increasing intake above this value”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Nuts
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Evidence exists of a nonlinear doseresponse association (P-nonlinearity , 0.001; n = 13 studies).The risk of all-cause mortality decreased by w10%, with increasing intake of fruit up to w250-300 g/d.No benefit was apparent when increasing intake above this value”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Fruit
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We found evidence of a nonlinear dose-response association (P-nonlinearity , 0.001; n = 3 studies).The risk of all-cause mortality increased by w10% with increasing intake of eggs up to w60 g/d”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Eggs
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although the test for nonlinearity was significant (P-nonlinearity , 0.01; n = 10 studies), a clear dose-response relation was observed.The risk of mortality decreased by 25% with increasing intake of whole grains up to w100 g/d”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Whole grains
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Evidence exists of a nonlinear dose-response association (P-nonlinearity , 0.001; n = 14 studies).The risk of mortality decreased by 11% with increasing intake of vegetables up to w300 g/d.No benefit was apparent when increasing intake above this value”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Vegetables
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Processed meat (30 g/d) | 1.00 1.12 (1.10, 1.14) 1.20 (1.17, 1.23) 1.28 (1.23, 1.32) 1.35 (1.28, 1.41) | NA | NA | | | | |”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Strengths and limitations
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Food frequency questionnaire data are sufficiently valid to rank individuals by usual dietary intake for the purpose of this meta-analysis.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although the test for nonlinearity was significant (P-nonlinearity = 0.02; n = 7 studies), a clear dose-response relation was observed.The risk of all-cause mortality increased by w60% with increasing intake of processed meat up to w200 g/d”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Processed meat
boosteddirectn = 143,572 ·- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Vegetables (80 g/d) | 1.00 0.94 (0.93, 0.96) 0.91 (0.89, 0.93) 0.89 (0.87, 0.92) 0.89 (0.87, 0.91) 0.89 (0.87, 0.91) 0.89 (0.86, 0.92) | | | | | | |”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Strengths and limitations
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Food frequency questionnaire data are sufficiently valid to rank individuals by usual dietary intake for the purpose of this meta-analysis.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Fish (100 g/d) | 1.00 0.93 (0.90, 0.96) 0.90 (0.84, 0.96) | NA | NA | NA | NA | | |”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Strengths and limitations
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Food frequency questionnaire data are sufficiently valid to rank individuals by usual dietary intake for the purpose of this meta-analysis.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Red meat (85 g/d) | 1.00 1.16 (1.14, 1.18) 1.35 (1.32, 1.38) | NA | NA | NA | NA | | |”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Strengths and limitations
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Food frequency questionnaire data are sufficiently valid to rank individuals by usual dietary intake for the purpose of this meta-analysis.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Evidence of a nonlinear doseresponse association was seen between dairy products and allcause mortality (P-nonlinearity = 0.01; n = 12 studies).No detrimental effects were observed up to an intake of w750 g/d, whereas intakes of #1000 g/d were associated with a 15% increased risk of mortality”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Dairy
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Whole grains (30 g/d) | 1.00 0.91 (0.89, 0.92) 0.84 (0.82, 0.86) 0.79 (0.76, 0.83) | NA | NA | NA | | | |”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Strengths and limitations
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Food frequency questionnaire data are sufficiently valid to rank individuals by usual dietary intake for the purpose of this meta-analysis.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nine of the 12 food groups showed an association with all-cause mortality in the categorical or continuous dose-response analyses; an inverse association was present for whole grain, vegetable, fruit, nut, legume, and fish consumption, whereas a positive association was present for red meat, processed meat, egg, and SSB consumption.”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > DISCUSSION
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Legumes (100 g/d) | 1.00 0.90 (0.85, 0.96) | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | |”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Strengths and limitations
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Food frequency questionnaire data are sufficiently valid to rank individuals by usual dietary intake for the purpose of this meta-analysis.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Refined grains (30 g/d) | 1.00 0.96 (0.92, 1.01) 0.96 (0.90, 1.02) 0.97 (0.91, 1.05) 1.00 (0.92, 1.08) 1.03 (0.92, 1.16) | NA | | | | | |”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Strengths and limitations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Food frequency questionnaire data are sufficiently valid to rank individuals by usual dietary intake for the purpose of this meta-analysis.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Dairy (200 g/d) | 1.00 0.97 (0.95, 0.99) 0.99 (0.97, 1.01) 1.04 (1.01, 1.07) 1.11 (1.05, 1.17) 1.16 (1.08, 1.23) | NA | | | | | |”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Strengths and limitations
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Food frequency questionnaire data are sufficiently valid to rank individuals by usual dietary intake for the purpose of this meta-analysis.
In the paper
“whereas red and processed meats were associated with an increased risk (8).”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [8] Wang, 2016, Red and processed meat consumption and mortality: dose-response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies, Public Health Nutr source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“This systematic review was planned and conducted according to the standards of the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (11).”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > METHODS
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [11] Stroup, 2000, Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group, JAMA source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Potential small-study effects such as publication bias were explored using the Egger test and funnel plots (21) if $10 studies were available, as recommended by the Cochrane Handbook (22).”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Statistical analysis
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [21] Egger, 1997, Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test, BMJ source
- Not checked yetcites [22] Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0. London: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011 [updated 2011 Mar]. Available from:. http://www.handbook.cochrane.org.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Previous meta-analyses showed that whole grains, fruits and vegetables, nuts, and fish were associated with a lower risk of allcause mortality (4-7)”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [4] 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 source
- Not checked yetcites [5] Aune, 2016, Whole grain consumption and risk of cardiovascular disease, cancer, and all cause and cause specific mortality: systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective studies, BMJ source
- Not checked yetcites [6] Mayhew, 2016, A systematic review and meta-analysis of nut consumption and incident risk of CVD and all-cause mortality, Br J Nutr source
- Not checked yetcites [7] Zhao, 2016, Fish consumption and all-cause mortality: a meta-analysis of cohort studies, Eur J Clin Nutr source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, we performed different types of analyses (high compared with low intake, dose-response metaanalysis, nonlinear dose-response analysis, and subgroup and sensitivity analyses), which allowed us to detect associations where the relation was nonlinear and find an optimal consumption with the lowest risk of all-cause mortality.”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Strengths and limitations
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The literature search was conducted by 2 authors (LS and A-ML); disagreements were resolved by consensus after discussion with another reviewer (HB).”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Search strategy
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, we assessed the quality of the studies using meta-evidence for each food group through use of the NutriGrade scoring system.”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Strengths and limitations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, we analyzed sensitivity for studies with a low risk of bias.”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Statistical analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“To evaluate the meta-evidence for the association between 12 predefined food groups and all-cause mortality (quality of evidence of meta-analyses was defined as the confidence in the estimate), we applied the NutriGrade scoring system (a maximum of 10 points)”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Quality of meta-evidence
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [15] Schwingshackl, 2016, Perspective: NutriGrade: a scoring system to assess and judge the meta-evidence of randomized controlled trials and cohort studies in nutrition research, Adv Nutr source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Rests on an assumption: Meta-analyses rarely assess the quality of evidence.
In the paper
“Among the strengths of the present meta-analysis are the a priori published systematic review protocol (14), the comprehensive literature search, and the large numbers of prospective studies, death cases, and food groups included.”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Strengths and limitations
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [14] Schwingshackl, 2016, Food groups and risk of chronic disease: a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis of cohort studies, Syst Rev source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Moreover, foods are directly linked to food-based dietary guidelines, which are based on the preventive actions of foods and should be released for each country depending on dietary practices and intake amounts (10).”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [10] 2010, Scientific opinion on establishing food-based dietary guidelines, EFSA J
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“After selecting studies, 2 reviewers (LS and A-ML) extracted the following information”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Data extraction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The review was registered in PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/; identifier CRD42016037069).”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > METHODS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“a recent metaanalysis showed that high adherence to diet quality indexes such as the Healthy Eating Index and Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension were associated with a 22% decrease in the risk of all-cause mortality (9).”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [9] Schwingshackl, 2015, Diet quality as assessed by the Healthy Eating Index, the Alternate Healthy Eating Index, the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension score, and health outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies, J Acad Nutr Diet source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“To determine the risk of bias of the prospective studies, we assessed how the studies ascertained exposure, how they assessed outcomes, whether the follow-up was adequate ($10 y), and whether they adjusted the basic model and made any outcomerelevant adjustments (age, sex, education, BMI, smoking, physical activity, or energy intake) (15).”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > Risk of bias assessment
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [15] Schwingshackl, 2016, Perspective: NutriGrade: a scoring system to assess and judge the meta-evidence of randomized controlled trials and cohort studies in nutrition research, Adv Nutr source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
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.”
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?
In the citing paper
“However, some recent meta-analyses suggest the association between red meat ingestion and adverse changes to traditional CVD risk factors is not as strong, 28 despite the relatively consistent association with hard endpoints like heart attack, stroke, mortality, and CVD development.[29][30][31][32][33]”
From Impact of chronic dietary red meat, white meat, or non-meat protein on trimethylamine N-oxide metabolism and renal excretion in healthy men and women (2019) · cites this paper as [29]
In the citing paper
“A variety of eating patterns are acceptable for the management of diabetes (70,97,131,132).”
From 5. Facilitating Positive Health Behaviors and Well-being to Improve Health Outcomes:Standards of Care in Diabetes—2023 (2023) · cites this paper as [131]
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.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > DISCUSSION
“Nine of the 12 food groups showed an association with all-cause mortality in the categorical or continuous dose-response analyses”
§ Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies 1,2 > DISCUSSION
“an inverse association was present for whole grain, vegetable, fruit, nut, legume, and fish consumption, whereas a positive association was present for red meat, processed meat, egg, and SSB consumption.”
Citations
Cites
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 · Cited by 56,722
Meta-analysis in clinical trials
DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 · Cited by 39,552
Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis
Higgins, J. P. T., & Thompson, S. G. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1186 · Cited by 36,763
Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology<SUBTITLE>A Proposal for Reporting</SUBTITLE>
Stroup, D. F. (2000) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.283.15.2008 · Cited by 20,623
Lim, S. S., Vos, T., Flaxman, A. D., Danaei, G., Shibuya, K., Adair-Rohani, H., AlMazroa, M. A., Amann, M., Anderson, H. R., Andrews, K. G., et al. (2012) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(12)61766-8 · Cited by 11,805
Flexible regression models with cubic splines
Durrleman, S., & Simon, R. M. (1989) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.4780080504 · Cited by 2,722
Methods for Trend Estimation from Summarized Dose-Response Data, with Applications to Meta-Analysis
Greenland, S., & Longnecker, M. P. (1992) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a116237 · Cited by 2,353
Does social class predict diet quality?
Darmon, N., & Drewnowski, A. (2008) · The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1093/ajcn/87.5.1107 · Cited by 2,250
Mozaffarian, D. (2016) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/circulationaha.115.018585 · Cited by 2,216
Research works printed but not linked: 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
Multiple health and environmental impacts of foods
Clark, M., Springmann, M., Hill, J., & Tilman, D. G. (2019) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1906908116 · Cited by 941
5. Lifestyle Management:Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2019
American Diabetes Association (2019) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/dc19-s005 · Cited by 700
Bechthold, A., Boeing, H., Schwedhelm, C., Hoffmann, G., Knüppel, S., Iqbal, K., De Henauw, S., Michels, N., Devleesschauwer, B., Schlesinger, S., et al. (2019) · Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition · doi:10.1080/10408398.2017.1392288 · Cited by 693
Self-citationLane, M. M., Davis, J. A., Beattie, S., Gómez‐Donoso, C., Loughman, A., O'Neil, A., Jacka, F., Berk, M., Page, R., Marx, W., et al. (2021) · Obesity Reviews · doi:10.1111/obr.13146 · Cited by 564
Selenium for preventing cancer
Vinceti, M., Filippini, T., Del Giovane, C., Dennert, G., Zwahlen, M., Brinkman, M., Zeegers, M. P., Horneber, M., D'Amico, R., & Crespi, C. M. (2018) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd005195.pub4 · Cited by 649
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
- ORCID
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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
