6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Associations of dietary vitamin B1, vitamin B2, vitamin B6, and vitamin B12 with the risk of depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis

      1 , 1 , 1 , 1
      Nutrition Reviews
      Oxford University Press (OUP)

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Context

          The results from epidemiologic studies on the intake of dietary vitamin B1, B2, B6, and B12 and association with risk of developing depression have been inconsistent.

          Objective

          The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to summarize the existing evidence and synthesize the results.

          Data Sources

          The databases of Web of Science and PubMed were searched for relevant articles published in English until September 2020.

          Study Selection

          Observational studies that evaluated the associations between depression and dietary vitamin B1, B2, B6, and B12 were included in this study.

          Data Extraction

          The job of data extraction was undertaken by 2 authors, and the pooled relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a fixed-effects model.

          Results

          Thirteen articles related to 18 studies were eligible for inclusion in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The pooled RR (95% CI) of depression for the highest vs the lowest category of dietary vitamin B1, B2, B6, and B12 was 0.69 (0.55–0.87), 0.77 (0.67–0.89), 0.81 (0.71–0.93), and 0.86 (0.75–0.99), respectively. The pooled RR (95% CI) of depression for the highest vs the lowest category of dietary vitamin B2 was 0.80 (0.64–0.99) in females and 0.83 (0.67–1.02) in males, for dietary vitamin B6 was 0.71 (0.59–0.86) in females and 0.92 (0.76–1.12) in males, and for dietary vitamin B12 was 0.79 (0.65–0.97) in females and 0.94 (0.77–1.15) in males.

          Conclusion

          This study suggested that the intake of dietary vitamin B1, B2, B6, and B12 may be inversely associated with the risk of depression; the inverse associations observed between depression and intake of dietary vitamin B2, B6, and B12 were significant in females, but not in males. Further studies are needed to confirm these results.

          Related collections

          Most cited references61

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis.

              The extent of heterogeneity in a meta-analysis partly determines the difficulty in drawing overall conclusions. This extent may be measured by estimating a between-study variance, but interpretation is then specific to a particular treatment effect metric. A test for the existence of heterogeneity exists, but depends on the number of studies in the meta-analysis. We develop measures of the impact of heterogeneity on a meta-analysis, from mathematical criteria, that are independent of the number of studies and the treatment effect metric. We derive and propose three suitable statistics: H is the square root of the chi2 heterogeneity statistic divided by its degrees of freedom; R is the ratio of the standard error of the underlying mean from a random effects meta-analysis to the standard error of a fixed effect meta-analytic estimate, and I2 is a transformation of (H) that describes the proportion of total variation in study estimates that is due to heterogeneity. We discuss interpretation, interval estimates and other properties of these measures and examine them in five example data sets showing different amounts of heterogeneity. We conclude that H and I2, which can usually be calculated for published meta-analyses, are particularly useful summaries of the impact of heterogeneity. One or both should be presented in published meta-analyses in preference to the test for heterogeneity. Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Nutrition Reviews
                Oxford University Press (OUP)
                0029-6643
                1753-4887
                March 01 2022
                February 10 2022
                April 29 2021
                March 01 2022
                February 10 2022
                April 29 2021
                : 80
                : 3
                : 351-366
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Epidemiology and Health Statistics, the College of Public Health of Qingdao University, Qingdao, People’s Republic of China
                Article
                10.1093/nutrit/nuab014
                33912967
                0ace0831-014f-4c02-87f3-a3d8a220dd5a
                © 2021

                https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article