This systematic review was conducted to summarize and clarify the evidence on the association between 25-hydroxyvitamin-D [25(OH)D] concentrations and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) risk and outcomes. PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases and Google Scholar were searched up to 26 November 2020. All retrospective and prospective cohort, cross-sectional, case-control, and randomized controlled trial studies that investigated the relation between 25(OH)D and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and COVID-19 severity were included. Thirty-nine studies were included in the current systematic review. In studies that were adjusted (OR: 1.77; 95% CI: 1.24, 2.53; I2: 44.2%) and nonadjusted for confounders (OR: 1.75; 95% CI: 1.44, 2.13; I2: 33.0%) there was a higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the vitamin D deficiency (VDD) group. Fifteen studies evaluated associations between VDD and composite severity. In the studies that were adjusted (OR: 2.57; 95% CI: 1.65, 4.01; I2 = 0.0%) and nonadjusted for confounders (OR: 10.61; 95% CI: 2.07, 54.23; I2 = 90.8%) there was a higher severity in the VDD group. Analysis of studies with crude OR (OR: 2.62; 95% CI: 1.13, 6.05; I2: 47.9%), and adjusted studies that used the Cox survival method (HR: 2.35; 95% CI: 1.22, 4.52; I2: 84%) indicated a significant association of VDD with mortality, while in adjusted studies that used logistic regression, no relation was observed (OR: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.63, 1.75; I2: 76.6%). The results of studies that examined relations between VDD and intensive care unit (ICU) admission, pulmonary complications, hospitalization, and inflammation were inconsistent. In conclusion, although studies were heterogeneous in methodological and statistical approach, most of them indicated a significant relation between 25(OH)D and SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19 composite severity, and mortality. With regard to infection, caution should be taken in interpreting the results, due to inherent study limitations. For ICU admission, inflammation, hospitalization, and pulmonary involvement, the evidence is currently inconsistent and insufficient.

No abstract

No abstract

Despite increasing evidence for the association of food-based dietary patterns with breast cancer risk, knowledge about the shape of the relationship and the quality of meta-evidence are insufficient. We aimed to summarize the associations between food groups and risks of breast cancer. We performed a systematic literature search of the PubMed and Embase databases up to March 2020. We included cohort, case-cohort, nested case-control studies, and follow-up studies of randomized controlled trials that investigated the relationship between breast cancer risk and at least 1 of the following food groups: red meat, processed meat, fish, poultry, egg, vegetables, fruit, dairy product (overall, milk, yogurt, and cheese), grains/cereals, nuts, legumes, soy, and sugar-sweetened beverages. Summary risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs were estimated using a random-effects model for linear and nonlinear relationships. Inverse linear associations were observed for vegetables (RR per 100 g/d, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95–0.99), fruit (RR per 100 g/d, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95–0.99), cheese (RR per 30 g/d, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.91–1.00), and soy (RR per 30 g/d, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.94–0.99), while positive associations were observed for red (RR per 100 g/d, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.03–1.18) and processed meat (RR per 50 g/d, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.04–1.33). None of the other food groups were significantly associated with breast cancer risk. A nonlinear association was observed only for milk, such that the intake of >450 g/d increased the risk, while no association was observed for lower intake amounts. High intakes of vegetables, fruit, cheese, and soy products and low intakes of red and processed meat were associated with lower risks of breast cancer. However, causality cannot be inferred from these statistical correlations.

No abstract