Skip to main content
. 2018 Mar 6;21(9):1693–1703. doi: 10.1017/S1368980018000381

Table 2.

Subgroup analyses of vegetable consumption and metabolic syndrome (MetS)

Stratification No. of studies Pooled RR 95 % CI Heterogeneity
All studies 16 0·89 0·85, 0·93 P=0·12; I 2=30·1 %
Type of vegetable
Green vegetables 3 1·10 0·98, 1·24 P=0·47; I 2=0 %
Gender
Male 6 0·91 0·81, 1·03 P=0·005; I 2=70 %
Female 8 0·89 0·83, 0·95 P=0·12; I 2=39 %
Design
Cross-sectional or case–control 13 0·89 0·85, 0·94 P=0·07; I 2=40 %
Cohort 3 0·89 0·81, 0·98 P=0·50; I 2=0 %
Diagnostic criteria of MetS
NCEP ATP III 14 0·89 0·85, 0·94 P=0·09; I 2=35 %
IDF 1 0·99 0·80, 1·23
Other 1 0·86 0·77, 0·96
Geographical region
Asia 11 0·92 0·87, 0·96 P=0·13; I 2=34 %
Europe 3 0·83 0·76, 0·90 P=0·38; I 2=0 %
South America 2 1·09 0·59, 1·99 P=0·87; I 2=0 %
Sample size
<1000 5 0·88 0·76, 1·01 P=0·98; I 2=0 %
>1000 11 0·89 0·83, 0·96 P=0·02; I 2=52 %
Age of population
Adult 14 0·92 0·87, 0·97 P=0·21; I 2=22 %
Adolescents 2 0·83 0·77, 0·90 P=0·38; I 2=0 %

RR, relative risk; NCEP ATP III, National Cholesterol Education Program–Adult Treatment Panel III; IDF, International Diabetes Federation.