Objective We performed a meta-analysis, including dose–response analysis, to quantitatively determine the association of fried-food consumption and risk of cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality in the general adult population.
Methods We searched PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science for all articles before 11 April 2020. Random-effects models were used to estimate the summary relative risks (RRs) and 95% CIs.
Results In comparing the highest with lowest fried-food intake, summary RRs (95% CIs) were 1.28 (1.15 to 1.43; n=17, I2=82.0%) for major cardiovascular events (prospective: 1.24 (1.12 to 1.38), n=13, I2=75.7%; case–control: 1.91 (1.15 to 3.17), n=4, I2=92.1%); 1.22 (1.07 to 1.40; n=11, I2=77.9%) for coronary heart disease (prospective: 1.16 (1.05 to 1.29), n=8, I2=44.6%; case–control: 1.91 (1.05 to 3.47), n=3, I2=93.9%); 1.37 (0.97 to 1.94; n=4, I2=80.7%) for stroke (cohort: 1.21 (0.87 to 1.69), n=3, I2=77.3%; case–control: 2.01 (1.27 to 3.19), n=1); 1.37 (1.07 to 1.75; n=4, I2=80.0%) for heart failure; 1.02 (0.93 to 1.14; n=3, I2=27.3%) for cardiovascular mortality; and 1.03 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.12; n=6, I2=38.0%) for all-cause mortality. The association was linear for major cardiovascular events, coronary heart disease and heart failure.
Conclusions Fried-food consumption may increase the risk of cardiovascular disease and presents a linear dose–response relation. However, the high heterogeneity and potential recall and misclassification biases for fried-food consumption from the original studies should be considered.
Data availability statement
Data are available upon reasonable request.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
PQ and MZ contributed equally.
Contributors PQ, FH, MZ and DH designed research; PQ and MH conducted the meta-analysis and drafted the manuscript; PQ and MH analysed the data; DL, XL, LX, YZ, QC, TW, XC, HL, QZ, QL, RQ, XW, YL, YZ, YW, FH, MZ and DH revised the manuscript. FH had primary responsibility for final content. All gave final approval and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of work ensuring integrity and accuracy.
Funding This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant numbers 81373074, 81402752 and 81673260); the Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province (grant number 2017A030313452); the Medical Research Foundation of Guangdong Province (grant number A2017181) and the Science and Technology Development Foundation of Shenzhen (grant numbers CYJ20140418091413562, JCYJ20160307155707264, JCYJ20170412110537191 and JCYJ20170302143855721).
Competing interests None declared.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.