Total fruit and all-cause mortality/survival.

32 articles, providing information about 20 different cohorts were found, including a total of 27,905 cases. Survival was the end point in one article (Nube M [2]), and mortality was the end point in all remaining articles.

Use of data from The EPIC Study: 7 publications were found about The EPIC Study (21). Publications included data about the same population with different length of follow-up (Trichopoulou A. 2003 vs Trichopoulou A. 2009), or about a subgroup of- vs all diabetic subjects from the cohort (Trichopoulou A. 2006 vs Nöthlings U. 2008). Obviously, the publications about longer length of follow-up, and about larger parts of the cohort were included.
The EPIC-Elderly study provided data about 74,607 elderly (aged ≥ 60) subjects - with or whithout diabetes - from 9 countries (including Greece & Spain), and including 4,047 deaths (Trichopoulou A. 2005b). But 3 other publications provided information about subgroups of this cohort from which the data partly overlapped with data from The EPIC-Elderly Study:

  • Agudo A (2007) 41.358 subjects aged 30-69 from EPIC-Spain, including 562 deaths.
  • Nöthlings U (2008) 10.449 subjects aged 35-70 with diabetes from 10 countries, and including 1,346 deaths.
  • Trichopoulou A (2009) 23,349 subjects aged 20-86 from EPIC-Greece, including 1,075 deaths.

The latter 3 publications were included in the systematic review, excluding data from The EPIC-Elderly Study. These 3 subcohorts included less deaths than the former subcohort (2,983 vs 4,047). But they all provided RR's as a categorized variable, allowing for analysis about effects at different levels of consumption, and for more precise analysis of the effect size. Whereas The EPIC-Elderly Study provided RR's as a continuous variable.
Also, a 4th publication about this cohort was included: Trichopoulou A (2005a) provided data about subjects from EPIC-Greece with CHD only, whereas he provided data about subjects from EPIC-Greece without CHD only in a later publication (Trichopoulou A. 2009).

Results: Significant protective effects were found in 6 cohorts (Appleby PN [8], Knoops KT [10], Kouris-Blazos A [14], Barzi F [26], Nagura J [32], González S [33]) and among men in a 7th cohort (Nube M [2]), including 14,040 cases (50% of all cases). In addition, nonsignificant protective effects were found in 2 cohorts, including 952 cases (Strandhagen E [16], Agudo M [21]. Two out of these cohorts were of moderate size (Agudo M [21], Nagura J [32]), the rest was of (very) small size.
When the effect of fresh fruit - instead of total fruit - was used from one cohort (Agudo A [21]), the nonsignificant protective effect became significant (HR = 0.79; 95% CI = 0.62-1.00; P = 0.029).
(Non)significantly increased risks were found in 2 cohorts of very small size (Nube M [2], Lasheras C [15]), but the effect was restricted to women once (Nube M [2]), and to subjects aged ≥ 80 in the other cohort (Lasheras C [15]). These subgroups included 506 cases (2% of all cases). For total fruits all RR's > 1 were restricted to cohorts of very small size.
The average RR = 0.88 for all cohorts (excluding incomplete data from Seccareccia F [24], and Chang-Claude J [31]).
Conclusion: Protective effects were found in 7 cohorts, including just over 50% of all cases. While increased risks were found in 2 subgroups from 2 cohorts of very small size, and including 2% of all cases. Fruit consumption possibly protects against all-cause mortality (- 12%).

Prospective studies of total fruit and all-cause mortality:
AuthorCohort nameCasesRelative Risk (RR)
33) González S (2008)No cohort name defined83RR = 0.71 (0.52-0.98; P = 0.04)
32) Nagura J (2009)The JACC Study7,606HR = 0.86 (0.80-0.93; P = < 0.001).
31) Chang-Claude J (2005)The German Vegetarian Study456No association.
29) Tucker KL (2005)The Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging306RR = 0.93 (0.84-1.03)
27) Darmadi-Blackberry I (2004)The Food Habits In Later Life Study169RR = 0.99 (0.97-1.01; P = 0.38)
26) Barzi F (2003)The GISSI-Preventione Trial1,658OR = 0.73 (0.54-0.98; P = 0.0002)
24) Seccareccia F (2003)The Seven Countries Study1,096No significant association.
22) Ness AR (2005)The Boyd Orr Cohort1,010RR = 0.87 (0.69-1.11; P = 0.2)
21) Trichopoulou A (2009)The EPIC-Greece Study (non-CHD cases)1,075MR = 0.93 (0.82-1.06; P = 0.28).
21) Nöthlings U (2008)The EPIC Study (diabetic subjects)1,346RR = 0.91 (0.73-1.12; P = 0.42).
21) Agudo A (2007)The EPIC-Spain Study562HR = 0.82 (0.64-1.04; P = 0.061).
21) Trichopoulou A (2005a)The EPIC-Greece Study (CHD cases)131MR = 1.02 (0.83-1.26)
16) Strandhagen E (2000)The Study Of Men Born in 1913390RR = 0.92 (0.84-1.00; P = 0.051)
15) Lasheras C (2000)No cohort name definedAge < 80: 38.

Age ≥ 80: 58.
Age < 80: RR = 1.79 (0.72-4.30; P = 0.20)

Age ≥ 80: RR = 1.05 (1.01-1.09; P = 0.06)
14) Kouris-Blazos A (1999)No cohort name defined38RR = 0.95 (0.90-0.99)
13) Whiteman D (1999)The OXCHECK Study481RR = 0.84 (0.66-1.08)
12) Mann JI (1997)The Oxford Vegetarian Study385DRR = 97 (74-127)
10) Knoops KT (2006)The HALE1,384HR = 0.86 (0.78-0.94)
8) Appleby PN (2002)The Health Food Shoppers Study2,529RR = 0.83 (0.75-0.91; P = < 0.01)
7) Sahyoun NR (1996)No cohort name defined199RR = 0.84 (0.53-1.33; P = 0.92)
6) Trichopoulou A (1995)No cohort name defined53RR = 1.01 (0.97-1.04; P = 0.75)
2) Nube M (1987)No cohort name defined742 men.

448 women.
Men: A protective effect.

Women: An increased risk.
1) Kahn HA (1984)The Adventist Health Study5,662OR = 0.95
Total number of cases: 27,905Average RR = 0.88