Evidence Hub

Correlations between urinary concentrations and dietary intakes of flavonols in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) study

Garro-Aguilar Y, Cayssials V, Achaintre D, Boeing H, Mancini FR, Mahamat-Saleh Y, Boutron-Ruault MC, Kühn T et al.

European journal of nutrition, 2020

475 participants

Abstract

PURPOSE: In this study, we aimed to study the correlation between acute and habitual intakes of flavonols, their main food sources and their 24-h urinary concentrations in an European population.

METHODS: A 24-h dietary recall (24-HDR) and 24-h urine samples were collected on the same day from a convenience subsample of 475 men and women from four countries (France, Italy, Greece and Germany) of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) study. A standardized 24-HDR software and a country/centre-specific validated dietary questionnaire (DQ) were used to collect acute and habitual dietary data, respectively. The intake of dietary flavonols was estimated using the Phenol-Explorer database. Urinary flavonols (quercetin, isorhamnetin, and kaempferol) were analysed using tandem mass spectrometry with a previous enzymatic hydrolysis.

RESULTS: Weak partial Spearman correlations between both dietary acute and habitual intake and urinary concentrations of quercetin (both Rpartial ~ 0.3) and total flavonols (both Rpartial ~ 0.2) were observed. No significant correlations were found for kaempferol and isorhamentin. Regarding flavonol-rich foods, weak correlations were found between urinary concentrations of quercetin and total flavonols and the acute intake of onions and garlics, fruits, tea, and herbal tea (all Rpartial ~ 0.2). For habitual intake, statistically significant correlations were only found between urinary quercetin concentration and herbal tea…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 475 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