Scholarlink

Background <p>Serving as the predominant energy substrate, dietary carbohydrate consumption patterns significantly influence human health. However, the association between carbohydrate intake and asthma risk remains unclear. This study aims to systematically review and meta-analyze existing evidence on associations between various carbohydrate types (including free sugars [FS], non-free sugars [NFS], refined grains [RG], whole grains [WG], and dietary fiber [DF]) and risk of asthma.</p> Methods <p>From inception to May 2025, we systematically searched major databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) for epidemiological research on the associations between varied dietary carbohydrate types and risk of asthma or wheeze. Random-effect models were employed to calculate pooled odds ratios (pORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The I-squared (I<sup>2</sup>) statistic was used to assess heterogeneity.</p> Results <p>Ninety-four investigations met inclusion criteria (26 cohort, 8 case–control, 60 cross-sectional). Intake of DF (asthma: pOR = 0.879, 95% CI: 0.781–0.989; wheeze: pOR = 0.844, 95% CI: 0.737–0.967), NFS (asthma: pOR = 0.922, 95% CI: 0.870–0.976; wheeze: pOR = 0.813, 95% CI: 0.745–0.887) and WG-rich foods (asthma: pOR = 0.851, 95% CI: 0.749–0.966) was associated with lower risks of asthma and wheeze. In contrast, consumption of FS-rich foods was associated with increased asthma risk (pOR = 1.176, 95% CI: 1.093–1.265). Despite significant heterogeneity (I<sup>2</sup> = 53.1%–82.5%<i>,</i> all<i> P</i> &lt; 0.05), sensitivity analyses (using trim-and-fill and leave-one-out methods) validated the stability of the findings.</p> Conclusions <p>This study underscores the importance of promoting high-quality carbohydrate intake (characterized by low FS and high NFS, DF, and WG), to support asthma prevention at the population level.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Dietary intake of different carbohydrate types and asthma risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年11月21日

查看全文
  • Yijing Bao,
  • Jingyan Zeng,
  • Lijie Wang,
  • Yongjia Sun,
  • Yuncheng Wang,
  • Ye Chen,
  • Yang Xia,
  • Yuhong Zhao,
  • Lishen Shan,
  • Hehua Zhang

摘要

Background

Serving as the predominant energy substrate, dietary carbohydrate consumption patterns significantly influence human health. However, the association between carbohydrate intake and asthma risk remains unclear. This study aims to systematically review and meta-analyze existing evidence on associations between various carbohydrate types (including free sugars [FS], non-free sugars [NFS], refined grains [RG], whole grains [WG], and dietary fiber [DF]) and risk of asthma.

Methods

From inception to May 2025, we systematically searched major databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) for epidemiological research on the associations between varied dietary carbohydrate types and risk of asthma or wheeze. Random-effect models were employed to calculate pooled odds ratios (pORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The I-squared (I2) statistic was used to assess heterogeneity.

Results

Ninety-four investigations met inclusion criteria (26 cohort, 8 case–control, 60 cross-sectional). Intake of DF (asthma: pOR = 0.879, 95% CI: 0.781–0.989; wheeze: pOR = 0.844, 95% CI: 0.737–0.967), NFS (asthma: pOR = 0.922, 95% CI: 0.870–0.976; wheeze: pOR = 0.813, 95% CI: 0.745–0.887) and WG-rich foods (asthma: pOR = 0.851, 95% CI: 0.749–0.966) was associated with lower risks of asthma and wheeze. In contrast, consumption of FS-rich foods was associated with increased asthma risk (pOR = 1.176, 95% CI: 1.093–1.265). Despite significant heterogeneity (I2 = 53.1%–82.5%, all P < 0.05), sensitivity analyses (using trim-and-fill and leave-one-out methods) validated the stability of the findings.

Conclusions

This study underscores the importance of promoting high-quality carbohydrate intake (characterized by low FS and high NFS, DF, and WG), to support asthma prevention at the population level.