Evidence Hub

Role of dietary factors in the prevention and treatment for depression: an umbrella review of meta-analyses of prospective studies

Xu Y, Zeng L, Zou K, Shan S, Wang X, Xiong J, Zhao L, Zhang L et al.

Translational psychiatry, 2021

19 participants

Abstract

The role of diet in depression is becoming increasingly acknowledged. This umbrella review aimed to summarize comprehensively the current evidence reporting the effects of dietary factors on the prevention and treatment of depression. PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched up to June 2021 to identify relevant meta-analyses of prospective studies. Twenty-eight meta-analyses, with 40 summary estimates on dietary patterns (n = 8), food and beverages (n = 19), and nutrients (n = 13) were eligible. The methodological quality of most meta-analyses was low (50.0%) or very low (25.0%). Quality of evidence was moderate for inverse associations for depression incidence with healthy diet [risk ratio (RR): 0.74, 95% confidential interval (CI), 0.48-0.99, I2 = 89.8%], fish (RR: 0.88, 95% CI, 0.79-0.97, I2 = 0.0%), coffee (RR: 0.89, 95% CI, 0.84-0.94, I2 = 32.9%), dietary zinc (RR: 0.66, 95% CI 0.50-0.82, I2 = 13.9%), light to moderate alcohol (<40 g/day, RR: 0.77, 95% CI, 0.74-0.83, I2 = 20.5%), as well as for positive association with sugar-sweetened beverages (RR: 1.05, 95% CI, 1.01-1.09, I2 = 0.0%). For depression treatment, moderate-quality evidence was identified for the effects of probiotic [standardized mean difference (SMD): -0.31, 95% CI, -0.56 to -0.07, I2 = 48.2%], omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid (SMD: -0.28, 95% CI, -0.47 to -0.09, I2 = 75.0%) and acetyl-L-carnitine (SMD: -1.10, 95% CI, -1.65 to -0.56, I2 = 86.0%) supplementations. Overall, the associations…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in animal, not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 19 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free