Background: Questions remain about the strength and shape of the dose-response relationship between fruit and vegetable intake and risk of cardiovascular disease, cancer and mortality, and the effects of specific types of fruit and vegetables. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to clarify these associations. Methods: PubMed and Embase were searched up to 29 September 2016. Prospective studies of fruit and vegetable intake and cardiovascular disease, total cancer and all-cause mortality were included. Summary relative risks (RRs) were calculated using a random effects model, and the mortality burden globally was estimated; 95 studies (142 publications) were included. Results: For fruits and vegetables combined, the summary RR per 200 g/day was 0.92 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.90–0.94, I2 = 0%, n = 15] for coronary heart disease, 0.84 (95% CI: 0.76–0.92, I2 = 73%, n = 10) for stroke, 0.92 (95% CI: 0.90–0.95, I2 = 31%, n = 13) for cardiovascular disease, 0.97 (95% CI: 0.95–0.99, I2 = 49%, n = 12) for total cancer and 0.90 (95% CI: 0.87–0.93, I2 = 83%, n = 15) for all-cause mortality. Similar associations were observed for fruits and vegetables separately. Reductions in risk were observed up to 800 g/day for all outcomes except cancer (600 g/day). Inverse associations were observed between the intake of apples and pears, citrus fruits, green leafy vegetables, cruciferous vegetables, and salads and cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality, and between the intake of green-yellow vegetables and cruciferous vegetables and total cancer risk. An estimated 5.6 and 7.8 million premature deaths worldwide in 2013 may be attributable to a fruit and vegetable intake below 500 and 800 g/day, respectively, if the observed associations are causal. Conclusions: Fruit and vegetable intakes were associated with reduced risk of cardiovascular disease, cancer and all-cause mortality. These results support public health recommendations to increase fruit and vegetable intake for the prevention of cardiovascular disease, cancer, and premature mortality.

The current systematic literature review and meta-analysis extends and confirms the associations of obesity with an unfavourable overall and breast cancer survival in pre and postmenopausal breast cancer, regardless of when BMI is ascertained. Increased risks of mortality in underweight and overweight women and J-shape associations with total mortality were also observed. The recommendation of maintaining a healthy body weight throughout life is important as obesity is a pandemic health concern.

Objective To investigate the association between intake of dietary fibre and whole grains and risk of colorectal cancer.Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective observational studies.Data sources PubMed and several other databases up to December 2010 and the reference lists of studies included in the analysis as well as those listed in published meta-analyses. Study selectionProspective cohort and nested case-control studies of dietary fibre or whole grain intake and incidence of colorectal cancer.Results 25 prospective studies were included in the analysis. The summary relative risk of developing colorectal cancer for 10 g daily of total dietary fibre (16 studies) was 0.90 (95% confidence interval 0.86 to 0.94, I 2 =0%), for fruit fibre (n=9) was 0.93 (0.82 to 1.05, I 2 =23%), for vegetable fibre (n=9) was 0.98 (0.91 to 1.06, I 2 =0%), for legume fibre (n=4) was 0.62 (0.27 to 1.42, I 2 =58%), and for cereal fibre (n=8) was 0.90 (0.83 to 0.97, I 2 =0%). The summary relative risk for an increment of three servings daily of whole grains (n=6) was 0.83 (0.78 to 0.89, I 2 =18%).Conclusion A high intake of dietary fibre, in particular cereal fibre and whole grains, was associated with a reduced risk of colorectal cancer. Further studies should report more detailed results, including those for subtypes of fibre and be stratified by other risk factors to rule out residual confounding. Further assessment of the impact of measurement errors on the risk estimates is also warranted. IntroductionColorectal cancer is the third most common type of cancer, with 1.2 million new cases diagnosed in 2008 worldwide, accounting for about 9.7% of all cases of cancer.1 Evidence from ecological studies, migrant studies, and secular trend studies suggest that environmental risk factors are of major importance in the cause of colorectal cancer. [2][3][4] Dietary factors have been suspected as important, but only intakes of red and processed meat and alcohol are considered to be convincing dietary risk factors for colorectal cancer. 5 In the 1970s, Burkitt proposed the hypothesis that dietary fibre reduces the risk of colorectal cancer, based on the observation of low rates of such cancer among rural Africans who ate a diet with a high fibre content. 6 Several plausible mechanisms have been proposed to explain the hypothesis, including increased stool bulk and dilution of carcinogens in the colonic lumen, reduced transit time, and bacterial fermentation of fibre to short chain fatty acids.7 However, although many epidemiological studies have investigated the association between fibre intake and risk of colorectal cancer, the results have not been consistent and the possibility of residual confounding by folate intake remains a controversial issue. 8 Case-control studies have generally shown a protective association, 9 10 whereas the results from cohort studies have been mixed. 8 11-31 In addition, it is not clear whether only specific types or sources of fibre are associated with the risk. Although initial c...

Objective To quantify the dose-response relation between consumption of whole grain and specific types of grains and the risk of cardiovascular disease, total cancer, and all cause and cause specific mortality.Data sources PubMed and Embase searched up to 3 April 2016.Study selection Prospective studies reporting adjusted relative risk estimates for the association between intake of whole grains or specific types of grains and cardiovascular disease, total cancer, all cause or cause specific mortality.Data synthesis Summary relative risks and 95% confidence intervals calculated with a random effects model.Results 45 studies (64 publications) were included. The summary relative risks per 90 g/day increase in whole grain intake (90 g is equivalent to three servings—for example, two slices of bread and one bowl of cereal or one and a half pieces of pita bread made from whole grains) was 0.81 (95% confidence interval 0.75 to 0.87; I2=9%, n=7 studies) for coronary heart disease, 0.88 (0.75 to 1.03; I2=56%, n=6) for stroke, and 0.78 (0.73 to 0.85; I2=40%, n=10) for cardiovascular disease, with similar results when studies were stratified by whether the outcome was incidence or mortality. The relative risks for morality were 0.85 (0.80 to 0.91; I2=37%, n=6) for total cancer, 0.83 (0.77 to 0.90; I2=83%, n=11) for all causes, 0.78 (0.70 to 0.87; I2=0%, n=4) for respiratory disease, 0.49 (0.23 to 1.05; I2=85%, n=4) for diabetes, 0.74 (0.56 to 0.96; I2=0%, n=3) for infectious diseases, 1.15 (0.66 to 2.02; I2=79%, n=2) for diseases of the nervous system disease, and 0.78 (0.75 to 0.82; I2=0%, n=5) for all non-cardiovascular, non-cancer causes. Reductions in risk were observed up to an intake of 210-225 g/day (seven to seven and a half servings per day) for most of the outcomes. Intakes of specific types of whole grains including whole grain bread, whole grain breakfast cereals, and added bran, as well as total bread and total breakfast cereals were also associated with reduced risks of cardiovascular disease and/or all cause mortality, but there was little evidence of an association with refined grains, white rice, total rice, or total grains.Conclusions This meta-analysis provides further evidence that whole grain intake is associated with a reduced risk of coronary heart disease, cardiovascular disease, and total cancer, and mortality from all causes, respiratory diseases, infectious diseases, diabetes, and all non-cardiovascular, non-cancer causes. These findings support dietary guidelines that recommend increased intake of whole grain to reduce the risk of chronic diseases and premature mortality.

BackgroundThe evidence that red and processed meat influences colorectal carcinogenesis was judged convincing in the 2007 World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute of Cancer Research report. Since then, ten prospective studies have published new results. Here we update the evidence from prospective studies and explore whether there is a non-linear association of red and processed meats with colorectal cancer risk.Methods and FindingsRelevant prospective studies were identified in PubMed until March 2011. For each study, relative risks and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were extracted and pooled with a random-effects model, weighting for the inverse of the variance, in highest versus lowest intake comparison, and dose-response meta-analyses. Red and processed meats intake was associated with increased colorectal cancer risk. The summary relative risk (RR) of colorectal cancer for the highest versus the lowest intake was 1.22 (95% CI  = 1.11−1.34) and the RR for every 100 g/day increase was 1.14 (95% CI  = 1.04−1.24). Non-linear dose-response meta-analyses revealed that colorectal cancer risk increases approximately linearly with increasing intake of red and processed meats up to approximately 140 g/day, where the curve approaches its plateau. The associations were similar for colon and rectal cancer risk. When analyzed separately, colorectal cancer risk was related to intake of fresh red meat (RR for 100 g/day increase  = 1.17, 95% CI  = 1.05−1.31) and processed meat (RR for 50 g/day increase  = 1.18, 95% CI  = 1.10−1.28). Similar results were observed for colon cancer, but for rectal cancer, no significant associations were observed.ConclusionsHigh intake of red and processed meat is associated with significant increased risk of colorectal, colon and rectal cancers. The overall evidence of prospective studies supports limiting red and processed meat consumption as one of the dietary recommendations for the prevention of colorectal cancer.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) are two previous viral infection outbreaks similar to the current COVID-19 pandemic. Studies that have looked at long-term health problems in survivors of these two outbreaks report reduced lung function and reduced ability to exercise in some survivors up to 6 months after discharge from hospital. Mental health problems including stress, anxiety and depression were observed in up to one-third of survivors at 6 months and beyond. The quality of life was observed to be low even 12 months after discharge from the hospital. Rehabilitation clinicians and services should anticipate similar health problems in survivors of COVID-19, investigate them accordingly and plan suitable and timely treatments to enable best possible recovery and quality of life for them. Objective: To determine long-term clinical outcomes in survivors of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) coronavirus infections after hospitalization or intensive care unit admission. Data sources: Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL Plus, and PsycINFO were searched. Study selection: Original studies reporting clinical outcomes of adult SARS and MERS survivors 3 months after admission or 2 months after discharge were included. Data extraction: Studies were graded using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine 2009 Level of Evidence Tool. Meta-analysis was used to derive pooled estimates for prevalence/severity of outcomes up to 6 months after hospital discharge, and beyond 6 months after discharge. Data synthesis: Of 1,169 identified studies, 28 were included in the analysis. Pooled analysis revealed that common complications up to 6 months after discharge were: impaired diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (prevalence 27%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 15-45%); and reduced exercise capacity (mean 6-min walking distance 461 m, CI 450-473 m). The prevalences of post-traumatic stress disorder (39%, 95% CI 31-47%), depression (33%, 95% CI 20-50%) and anxiety (30%, 95% CI 10-61) beyond 6 months after discharge were considerable. Low scores on Short-Form 36 were identified beyond 6 months after discharge. Conclusion: Lung function abnormalities, psychological impairment and reduced exercise capacity were common in SARS and MERS survivors. Clinicians should anticipate and investigate similar longterm outcomes in COVID-19 survivors.

Aims To develop a patient-centred, group based self-management programme (X-PERT), based on theories of empowerment and discovery learning, and evaluate the effectiveness of the programme on clinical, lifestyle and psychosocial outcomes.Methods Adults with type 2 diabetes (n = 314), living in Burnley, Pendle or Rossendale, Lancashire, UK were randomised to either individual appointments (controls) (n=157) or the X-PERT Programme (n=157). X-PERT patients were invited to attend six, two hour group sessions of self-management education. Outcomes were assessed at baseline, four and 14 months.Results 149 participants (95%) attended the X-PERT Programme with 128 (82%) attending ≥4 sessions. By 14 months the X-PERT group compared with controls showed significant improvements in the mean HbA 1c (-0.6% versus +0.1%, repeated measures ANOVA, P<0.001). The number needed to treat (NNT) for preventing diabetes medication increase was 4 (95% CI: 3 to 7) and NNT for reducing diabetes medication was 7 (95% CI: 5 to 11). Statistically significant improvements were also shown in the X-PERT patients compared to the control patients for body weight, BMI, waist circumference, total cholesterol, selfempowerment; diabetes knowledge; physical activity levels; foot care; fruit and vegetable intake; enjoyment of food; treatment satisfaction.Conclusions Participation in the X-PERT Programme by adults with type 2 diabetes was shown at 14 months to have led to improved glycaemic control; reduced total cholesterol level, body weight, BMI and waist circumference; reduced requirement for diabetes medication; increased consumption of fruit and vegetables, enjoyment of food, knowledge of diabetes, self-empowerment, self-management skills and treatment satisfaction.WORDS 249

School-based interventions moderately improve fruit intake but have minimal impact on vegetable intake. Additional studies are needed to address the barriers for success in changing dietary behavior, particularly in relation to vegetables.