Table 3.
Study characteristics of the association between fruit and vegetable intake levels and the incidence of NAFLD were evaluated.
| References | Country | Research type | Total number of participants | Baseline age (years) | Gender (male/female) | Follow-up period (years) | Methods of disease diagnosis | Quality of study |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chan et al. (27) | China | Cross-sectional study | 797 | 36.2–60.3 | 332/465 | / | Measurement of intrahepatic triglyceride content (IHTG) by 1H-MRS | Good |
| Liu et al. (28) | China | Cross-sectional study | 1,639 | 18.55 ± 1.48 | 880/759 | / | B-ultrasonic examination | Good |
| Tajima et al. (23) | Japan | Cross-sectional study | 2,444 | 40–69 | 977/1,467 | / | Abdominal ultrasonography | Good |
| Emamat et al. (24) | Iran | Case-control study | 999 | 43.26 ± 14.03 | 430/569 | / | Controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) score in Fibroscan exam | Good |
| Giraldi et al. (32) | Italy | Case-control study | 815 | 51.37 ± 16.67 | 509/304 | / | Presence of sonographic features of hepatic steatosis based on the presence of the bright liver pattern as recommended by the American Gastroenterology Association. | Good |
| Kim and Shin (25) | Korea | Cross-sectional study | 52,280 | 40–79 | 15,588/36,692 | 4.2 years | NAFLD was diagnosed based on FLI Participants with FLI ≥60 were defined as having NAFLD. | Good |
| Noureddin et al. (29) | America | Case-control study | 32,448 | 45–75 | 12,225/20,223 | / | NAFLD cases among eligible participants were identified using Medicare claims | Good |
| Li et al. (33) | China | Cross-sectional study | 26,891 | ≥18 | 12,727/14,164 | / | Abdominal ultrasonography | Good |
| Tutunchi et al. (30) | Iran | Case-control study | 210 | 30–60 | 90/120 | / | Abdominal ultrasonography | Good |
| Du et al. (31) | China | Cross-sectional study | 2,667 | 18–76 | 1,694/973 | / | Abdominal ultrasonography | Good |
| Guo et al. (26) | UK | Case-control study | 372,492 | 48.63–64.83 | 176,327/196,165 | / | / | Good |
| 465,15.5690ptReferences | Sources of intake assessment | Adjustment factors | Relationship between vegetables or fruits and NAFLD OR (LL, UL) | |||||
| Vegetables | Fruits | |||||||
| Chan et al. (27) | FFQ | Age, sex, BMI, smoke, drink, central obesity, triglyceride >1.7 mmol/l, reduced HDL-cholesterol, hypertension, impaired fasting glucose or diabetes, the PNPLA3 genotypes (CC vs. CG vs. GG genotypes), and Energy intake | 0.51 (0.3, 0.87)* | 0.50 (0.3, 0.84)* | ||||
| Liu et al. (28) | FFQ | Age, sex, BMI, economic income, smoking status, educational level, physical activity, family history of diabetes, stroke, and energy intake. | 0.81 (0.66, 1.04) | 0.84 (0.67, 1.07) | ||||
| Tajima et al. (23) | BDHQ | Age, lifestyle factors, and BMI | 0.83 (0.57, 1.21) | 0.73 (0.5, 1.07) | ||||
| Emamat et al. (24) | FFQ | Age, gender, BMI, energy intake, and physical activity | 0.36 (0.22, 0.56)* | / | ||||
| Giraldi et al. (32) | FFQ | Age, gender, total energy intake, diabetes status, smoking status, BMI, and physical activity. | 1.81 (0.68, 4.78) | 2.26 (0.97, 5.29) | ||||
| Kim and Shin (25) | FFQ | Age, education level, smoking status, alcohol consumption, physical activity, energy intake, and red and processed meat intake, BMI | 0.80 (0.69, 0.93)* | 0.83 (0.72, 0.95)* | ||||
| Noureddin et al. (29) | FFQ | BMI, alcohol intake, coffee intake, total soda intake, vigorous physical activity, and energy intake | 0.99 (0.88, 1.1) | 0.91 (0.81, 1.02) | ||||
| Li et al. (33) | FFQ | Age, sex, smoking status, drinking status, education level, occupation, household income, physical activity, family history of disease (including cardiovascular disease, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes), hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes, total energy intake, “fruits and sweet” dietary pattern score, “healthy dietary pattern score, and “animal foods” dietary pattern score, vegetable intake and fruit intake, BMI | 0.81 (0.63, 1.05) | / | ||||
| Tutunchi et al. (30) | Food diary | Sex, education, physical activity, BMI, and WC, the relationships and effect sizes for the residual effects of this variable | 0.34 (0.16, 0.81)* | 0.54 (0.19, 1.56) | ||||
| Du et al. (31) | FFQ | Age, sex, educational attainment, BMI, WC, HC, BP, diabetes duration; family history, smoking, drinking, physical activity level, the consumption of bean products, salt, fish and sugary beverages, and biochemical index values (HbA1c, ALT, AST, and serum lipid levels). | 0.67 (0.51, 0.88)* | 1.15 (0.84, 1.59) | ||||
| Guo et al. (26) | FFQ | Age, sex, race, education level, Townsend Deprivation Index (quartiles), drinking status, smoking status, exercise, BMI, and diabetes. | 1.03 (0.93, 1.14) | 0.89 (0.81, 0.98)* | ||||
*Indicates that the result is significant.