Table 3.
Summary results of the included studies
| 1st author, year of publication | Unit of measurement | Sex | CEE countries | WE countries | Power | Summary: CEE compared to WE‡ | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Average intake, cc. or % | Range* | SD | Average intake, cc. or % | Range* | SD | |||||
| 1. DIETARY SURVEYS | ||||||||||
| FRUITS | ||||||||||
| Kromhout 1989 [22]§│ | g/day intake | M | 58.6 | 1.0-153.6 | 207.3† | 132.1 | 21.3-310.9 | 178.3† | 0.96 | LOWER |
| Winkler 1992 [31] | g/day intake | M | 98.0 | 145.3 | 101.0 | 164.3 | 0.05 | no difference | ||
| Schroll 1996 [23]§ | g/day intake | M | 186.0 | 239.1† | 234.0 | 120.0-532.5 | 230.2† | 0.26 | lower-ns | |
| F | 162.0 | 210.2† | 208.0 | 135.0-399.6 | 202.4† | 0.43 | lower-ns | |||
| Karamanos 2002 [24] | g/day intake | M | 293.0 | 239.1† | 315.0 | 236.0-355.0 | 239.1† | 0.16 | no difference | |
| F | 303.0 | 210.2† | 325.7 | 234.0-377.0 | 210.2† | 0.21 | lower-ns | |||
| Serra-Majem 2003 [25]§ | g/day intake | M+F | 137.0 | 224.7† | 290.0 | 218.0† | 1.00 | LOWER | ||
| Petkeviciene 2009 [26] | p/month intake | M+F | 20.8 | 84.3† | 29.4 | 84.3† | 0.12 | no difference | ||
| Lixandru 2010 [3] | % eat daily | M | 100.0 | na | 89.5 | na | 0.34 | higher-ns | ||
| F | 100.0 | na | 100.0 | na | na | no difference | ||||
| Paalanen 2011 [33] | % eat daily | M | 14.0 | 2.0-31.0 | na | 52.3 | 43.0-61.0 | na | 1.00 | LOWER |
| F | 26.0 | 4.0-50.0 | na | 73.3 | 66.0-82.0 | na | 1.00 | LOWER | ||
| Crispim 2011 [34] | g/day intake | M | 207.0 | 176.7 | 197.0 | 163.0-228.0 | 175.1 | 0.07 | no difference | |
| F | 226.0 | 155.7 | 230.5 | 194.0-265.0 | 151.1 | 0.05 | no difference | |||
| El Ansari 2012 [35] | % eat daily | M | 31.6 | 23.8-39.4 | na | 30.4 | 28.6-32.1 | na | 0.05 | no difference |
| F | 46.8 | 39.5-54.1 | na | 51.6 | 47.8-55.4 | na | 0.42 | lower-ns | ||
| VEGETABLES | ||||||||||
| Kromhout 1989 [22]§│ | g/day intake | M | 240.0 | 159.0-276.0 | 198.2† | 102.6 | 57.3-227 | 88.1† | 1.00 | HIGHER |
| Winkler 1992 [31] | g/day intake | M | 126.0 | 154.8 | 124.0 | 154.8 | 0.05 | no difference | ||
| Schroll 1996 [23]§ | g/day intake | M | 341.0 | 154.8† | 288.0 | 82.4-461.0 | 128.1† | 0.63 | higher-ns | |
| F | 297.0 | 143.9† | 238.0 | 77.0-383.0 | 121.0† | 0.92 | HIGHER | |||
| Karamanos 2002 [24] | g/day intake | M | 243.0 | 154.8† | 189.0 | 168.0-214.0 | 154.8† | 0.96 | HIGHER | |
| F | 291.0 | 143.9† | 197.3 | 178.0-222.0 | 143.9† | 1.00 | HIGHER | |||
| Serra-Majem 2003 [25]§ | g/day intake | M+F | 288.0 | 149.4† | 97.1 | 68.7† | 1.00 | HIGHER | ||
| Petkeviciene 2009 [26] | p/month intake | M+F | 29.9 | 56.0† | 29.1 | 56.0† | 0.05 | no difference | ||
| Lixandru 2010 [32] | g/day intake | M | 287.0 | 189.4 | 269.9 | 108.1 | 0.07 | no difference | ||
| F | 258.3 | 157.9 | 283.3 | 125.2 | 0.06 | no difference | ||||
| Paalanen 2011 [33] | % eat daily | M | 15.0 | 10.0-24.0 | na | 48.7 | 44.0-54.0 | na | 1.00 | LOWER |
| F | 22.3 | 11.0-35.0 | na | 70.7 | 69.0-72.0 | na | 1.00 | LOWER | ||
| Crispim 2011 [34] | g/day intake | M | 162.0 | 121.1 | 201.0 | 168.0-222.0 | 112.8 | 0.60 | lower-ns | |
| F | 157.0 | 99.1 | 202.3 | 166.0-254.0 | 108.5 | 0.87 | LOWER | |||
| El Ansari 2012 [35] | % eat daily | M | 37.8 | 23.9-51.6 | na | 24.4 | 23.3-25.4 | na | 0.99 | HIGHER |
| F | 44.9 | 28.0-61.8 | na | 42.0 | 37.5-46.4 | na | 0.18 | no difference | ||
| 2. HEALTH BEHAVIOUR SURVEYS | ||||||||||
| FRUITS | ||||||||||
| Wardle 1997 [36] | % eat daily | M | 40.0 | 36.0-45.0 | na | 42.9 | 23.0-78.0 | na | 0.43 | lower-ns |
| F | 65.0 | 59.0-74.0 | na | 61.1 | 36.2-86.0 | na | 0.72 | higher-ns | ||
| Prattala 2007 [37] | % eat daily | M | 11.0 | 10.0-12.0 | na | 18.0 | na | 1.00 | LOWER | |
| F | 20.3 | 17.0-25.0 | na | 36.0 | na | 1.00 | LOWER | |||
| EHIS 2013 [40] | % eat daily | M | 52.8 | 39.4-66.8 | na | 60.6 | 57.9-66.0 | na | 1.00 | LOWER |
| F | 67.0 | 49.2-82.3 | na | 69.1 | 62.3-74.5 | na | 1.00 | LOWER | ||
| Burisch 2014[41] | % eat daily | M+F | 43.4 | na | 54.3 | na | 0.87 | LOWER | ||
| VEGETABLES | ||||||||||
| Prattala 2009 [38] | % eat daily | M | 22.5 | 16.1-27.5 | na | 32.1 | 24.7-39.1 | na | 1.00 | LOWER |
| F | 30.4 | 25.0-33.4 | na | 45.9 | 36.9-59.1 | na | 1.00 | LOWER | ||
| EHIS 2013 [40] | % eat daily | M | 54.8 | 44.2-71.3 | na | 68.6 | 56.0-82.7 | na | 1.00 | LOWER |
| F | 62.5 | 55.0-78.6 | na | 74.2 | 65.3-87.4 | na | 1.00 | LOWER | ||
| Burisch 2014 [41] | % eat daily | M+F | 49.0 | na | 60.1 | na | 0.88 | LOWER | ||
| FRUITS AND VEGETABLES | ||||||||||
| Hall 2009 [3] | % eat >=5 p/day | M | 18.1 | 8.0-44.5 | na | 22.0 | na | 0.98 | LOWER | |
| F | 23.5 | 9.4-49.7 | na | 24.9 | na | 0.38 | lower-ns | |||
| 3. ANTIOXIDANT STUDIES | ||||||||||
| BETA CAROTENE | ||||||||||
| Kardinaal 1993 [29] | ug/g fatty acid | M | 0.51 | 0.45-0.56 | 0.80 | 0.42 | 0.18-0.59 | 0.80 | 0.31 | higher-ns |
| Kristenson 1997 [42] | umol/l cc. | M | 0.38 | 0.20 | 0.51 | 0.32 | 0.92 | LOWER | ||
| Bobak 1998 [27] | umol/l cc. | M | 0.39 | 0.26† | 0.77 | 0.26† | 1.00 | LOWER | ||
| F | 0.52 | 0.40† | 0.97 | 0.40† | 1.00 | LOWER | ||||
| Bobak 1999 [43] | umol/l cc.** | M | 0.11 | 0.08 | 0.20 | 0.21 | 1.00 | LOWER | ||
| Woodside 2013 [45] | umol/l cc | M | 0.25 | 0.26 | 0.34 | 0.19-0.48 | 0.31 | 1.00 | LOWER | |
| F | 0.36 | 0.34 | 0.44 | 0.30-0.67 | 0.37 | 1.00 | LOWER | |||
| VITAMIN C | ||||||||||
| Miere 2007 [44] | mg/day intake | M | 80.3 | 54.8 | 106.2 | 83.4 | 0.77 | lower-ns | ||
| F | 88.8 | 67.9 | 124.4 | 94.8 | 1.00 | LOWER | ||||
| Woodside 2013 [45] | umol/l cc. | M | 42.0 | 23.8 | 38.0 | 32.7-44.4 | 23.1 | 0.74 | higher-ns | |
| F | 54.5 | 27.7 | 48.5 | 43.5-52.4 | 23.4 | 1.00 | HIGHER | |||
M, Males; F, Females; p, portion; EHIS, European Health Interview Survey; na, not applicable; cc., concentration
*Range of intake levels, percentages or concentrations if data was reported from more than one country or site
†SD assumed from EPIC study
‡LOWER: Intake level, percentage or concentration significantly lower in CEE/FSU countries compared to data from WE, (power > 0.80); HIGHER: Intake level, percentage or concentration significantly higher in CEE/FSU countries compared to data from WE, (power > 0.80); lower-ns: Intake level, percentage or concentration lower in CEE/FSU but difference not significant (power < 0.80 and >0.20); higher-ns: Intake level, percentage or concentration higher in CEE/FSU but difference not significant (power < 0.80 and >0.20); no difference: power < 0.20
§:North–south weighting was applied
I:Seasonal weighting was applied
**Calculated from reported data using molar mass = 537 g