Table 2.

Summary effect size (sES) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of high quality groups on the basis of Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for quality assessment of cohort studies

Author [RN]	Food items	High quality		Cohort studies		Eq
		sES (95% CI)	NP	sES (95% CI)	NP
Yang et al. [16]	Soy	0.70 (0.45, 0.99)	5	0.92 (0.85, 0.98)	3	Yes
Wu et al. [17]	Cruciferous vegetable	0.88 (0.80, 0.97)	21	0.93 (0.87, 1.00)	11	Yes
Wu et al. [18]	Cruciferous vegetable	0.84 (0.76, 0.93)	11	0.89 (0.77, 1.02)	6	No
Zhu et al. [19]	Red meat	1.30 (1.05, 1.61)	9	1.02 (0.90, 1.17)	4	No
	Processed meat	1.26 (1.10, 1.46)	17	1.18 (1.00, 1.38)	9	Yes
Choi et al. [20]	Red meat	1.60 (1.20, 2.13)	8	1.26 (1.00, 1.59)	4	Yes
	Processed meat	1.20 (0.88, 1.62)	6	1.25 (0.83, 1.86)	3	Yes
Liu et al. [21]	Vegetable	0.97 (0.78, 1.21)	3	0.91 (0.68, 1.21)	2	Yes
	Fruit	0.96 (0.69, 1.33)	2	0.81 (0.58, 1.12)	1	Yes
	Soy	1.12 (0.68, 1.84)	3	1.46 (1.07, 1.98)	2	No
Yang et al. [23]	Vegetable	0.68 (0.59, 0.78)	9	0.66 (0.51,0.86)	9	Yes
	Fruit	1.03 (0.87, 1.20)	7	1.04 (0.91, 1.20)	6	Yes
Song et al. [24]	Red meat	1.27 (1.09, 1.48)	17	1.00 (0.83, 1.20)	8	No
Xin et al. [25]	Vegetable oil	0.99 (0.87, 1.13)	7	0.94 (0.84, 1.06)	5	Yes
Wang et al. [26]	Cruciferous vegetable	0.61 (0.44, 0.86)	6	0.76 (0.62, 0.93)	6	Yes
Wu et al. [27]	Vegetable	0.78 (0.54, 1.14)	7	1.00 (0.52, 1.92)	1	Yes
	Soy	0.87 (0.60, 1.26)	5	1.09 (0.60, 1.98)	1	Yes
Li et al. [28]	Cruciferous vegetable	0.78 (0.55, 1.01)	5	0.87 (0.67, 1.05)	4	Yes
Hu et al. [29]	Cruciferous vegetable	0.89 (0.77, 1.02)	5	0.92 (0.80, 1.07)	4	Yes

RN, reference number; Eq, equivalent direction and statistical significance of sES between high quality group and cohort studies (yes or no); NP, number of papers.