Olive Oil Consumption, Risk Factors, and Diseases: An Umbrella Review.

CONTEXT: Olive oil is a vegetable oil that provides health benefits, including a reduction in free radicals and total cholesterol and prevention of chronic diseases. The escalating incidence of chronic diseases presents a substantial challenge to public health, prompting numerous studies to assess these health-related effects. Despite several systematic reviews and meta-analyses summarizing the association between olive oil consumption and specific health outcomes, there is no summary of the accumulated evidence from these reviews. OBJECTIVE: This umbrella review summarizes the evidence on olive oil consumption or intervention in adults and its association with multiple risk factors and diseases. DATA SOURCES: We retrieved systematic reviews of randomized trials or observational studies on oral interventions or the consumption of olive oil. The systematic search encompassed databases including MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS, and CENTRAL from inception to February 6, 2023. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent reviewers conducted data extraction and assessed methodological quality using the Joanna Briggs Institute tool. DATA ANALYSIS: Overall, 17 systematic reviews of randomized trials and observational studies, covering outcomes such as cardiovascular diseases, cancer, type 2 diabetes, glucose metabolism, inflammatory and oxidative markers, and all-cause mortality, were included. The evidence suggests a beneficial association between olive oil consumption and cardiovascular diseases, cancer, type 2 diabetes, and all-cause mortality. However, the evidence was less definitive for inflammatory markers, oxidative stress, glucose metabolism, and blood lipid outcomes. Several meta-analyses revealed high heterogeneity and wide confidence intervals, along with a limited number of randomized clinical trials. CONCLUSION: Given the high heterogeneity and low quality of evidence, further studies involving randomized trials are imperative. Prioritizing an in-depth analysis of specific olive oil components and using a control group with distinct characteristics and different effects is strongly recommended. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration no. CRD42022357290.

Effectiveness of nutritional interventions to prevent nonprogressive congenital and perinatal brain injuries: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

CONTEXT: Nutritional interventions for newborns with brain injury are scarce, and there are gaps in the knowledge of their mechanisms of action in preventing the occurrence of cerebral palsy (CP) or the incidence of other developmental disabilities. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review was to assess the effect of nutritional interventions in preventing nonprogressive congenital or perinatal brain injuries, or in improving outcomes related to neurological development. DATA SOURCES: Randomized trials on any nutritional intervention for pregnant women at risk of preterm delivery, or for children with low birth weight, preterm, or with confirmed or suspected microcephaly, CP, or fetal alcohol syndrome disorders (FASDs) were retrieved from MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS, and CENTRAL databases from inception to September 17, 2020. DATA EXTRACTION: Data extraction, risk of bias (Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2), and quality of evidence (GRADE approach) were assessed by 2 authors. DATA ANALYSIS: Pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a random-effects meta-analysis. Seventeen studies were included on intravenous interventions (magnesium sulfate [n = 5], amino acids [n = 4], vitamin A [n = 1], and N-acetylcysteine [n = 1]); enteral interventions (vitamin D [n = 1], prebiotic [n = 1], nutrient-enriched formula [n = 1], and speed of increasing milk feeds [n = 1]); and oral interventions (choline [n = 1] and docosahexaenoic acid, choline, and uridine monophosphate [n = 1]). All studies assessed CP, except 1 on FASDs. Eight studies were judged as having high risk of bias. Five studies (7413 babies) with high-quality evidence demonstrated decreased risk of childhood CP (RR = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.52-0.88) with magnesium sulfate. Interventions with amino acids had no effect on CP prevention or other outcomes. Except for 1 study, no other intervention decreased the risk of CP or FASDs. CONCLUSION: Although different types of nutritional interventions were found, only those with antenatal magnesium sulfate were effective in decreasing CP risk in preterm infants. Well-designed, adequately powered randomized clinical trials are required.

Influence of sugar label formats on consumer understanding and amount of sugar in food choices: a systematic review and meta-analyses.

CONTEXT: Reducing population intakes of sugar has become a focus of many national and international public health policies. Packaged foods and beverages are key contributors to sugar intakes, and food labels can be an effective tool to reduce sugar consumption. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to examine the influence of sugar label formats on 2 outcomes: consumers' understanding of sugar information, and the amount of sugar in consumers' food choices. DATA SOURCES: Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, CAB Abstracts, SciELO, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched up until February 4, 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized experiments or quasi-experiments were included if they investigated the influence of sugar label formats on consumers' understanding of sugar information or on the amount of sugar in consumers' food choices. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted independently by 2 authors. Mean differences (MDs), standardized mean differences (SMDs), and odds ratios (ORs) plus 95%CIs were used to describe between-group differences for intervention label formats using random-effects models. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies, which examined 39 comparisons, were included. Label formats using "high in sugar" interpretative texts (traffic light labels [MD 41.6; 95%CI 37.9-45.4] and warning signs [OR 1.33; 95%CI 1.0-1.78]) were most effective in increasing consumers' understanding of the sugar content in packaged foods. Health warning messages (SMD -0.32; 95%CI -0.43 to -0.22), graphical depictions of sugar content in teaspoons (SMD -0.32; 95%CI -0.48 to -0.17), and warning signs (SMD -0.24; 95%CI -0.35 to -0.13) were most effective for influencing consumers to choose products with lower sugar content. CONCLUSIONS: Formats that provide an interpretation of sugar information, particularly those indicating if a product is high in sugar, were more helpful than only numerical information for improving consumer understanding and promoting food choices with less sugar. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number CRD42018081222.

Influence of menu labeling on food choices in real-life settings: a systematic review.

CONTEXT: Evidence that menu labeling influences food choices in real-life settings is lacking. Reviews usually focus on calorie counts without addressing broader issues related to healthy eating. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review assessed the influence of diverse menu-labeling formats on food choices in real-life settings. DATA SOURCES: Several databases were searched: Cochrane Library, Scopus, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Food Science and Technology Abstracts, Biological Abstracts, CAB Abstracts, EconLit, SciELO, and LILACS. STUDY SELECTION: Articles reporting experiments, quasi-experiments, and observational studies using control or preintervention groups were selected blindly by two reviewers. DATA EXTRACTION: Data was extracted using a standard form. Analyses differentiated between foodservice types. The quality of the 38 included studies was assessed blindly by two reviewers. DATA ANALYSIS: The results were mixed, but a partial influence of menu labeling on food choices was more frequent than an overall influence or no influence. Menu labeling was more effective in cafeterias than in restaurants. Qualitative information, such as healthy-food symbols and traffic-light labeling, was most effective in promoting healthy eating. In general, the studies were of moderate quality and did not use control groups. CONCLUSIONS: Calorie labeling in menus is not effective to promote healthier food choices. Further research in real-life settings with control groups should test diverse qualitative information in menu labeling.