Affiliation:
1. Healthy Food Evaluation Research Center Department of Occupational and Environmental Health West China School of Public Health and West China Fourth Hospital Sichuan University Chengdu 610041 China
2. Laboratory of Molecular Translational Medicine Center for Translational Medicine Key Laboratory of Birth Defects and Related Diseases of Women and Children (Sichuan University) Ministry of Education Department of Pediatrics West China Second University Hospital Sichuan University Chengdu 610041 China
3. Food Safety Monitoring and Risk Assessment Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province Chengdu 610041 China
Abstract
ScopeThe current evidence between dietary flavonoids consumption and multiple health outcomes is inadequate and inconclusive. To summarize and evaluate the evidence for dietary flavonoids consumption and multiple health outcomes, an umbrella review of meta‐analyses and systematic reviews is conducted.Methods and resultsPubMed, Ovid‐EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews are searched up to January 2024. The study includes a total of 32 articles containing 24 unique health outcomes in this umbrella review. Meta‐analyses are recalculated by using a random effects model. Separate analyses are performed based on the kind of different flavonoid subclasses. The study finds some unique associations such as flavonol and gastric cancer, isoflavone and uterine fibroids and endometrial cancer, total flavonoids consumption and lung cancer, ovarian cancer, and prostate cancer. Overall, the study confirms the negative associations between dietary flavonoids consumption and type 2 diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular diseases, breast cancer, colorectal cancer, lung cancer, and mortality, while positive associations are observed for prostate cancer and uterine fibroids.ConclusionAlthough dietary flavonoids are significantly associated with many outcomes, firm generalizable conclusions about their beneficial or harmful effects cannot be drawn because of the low certainty of evidence for most of outcomes. More well‐designed primary studies are needed.