Consumption of total fish and all-cause mortality or survival.

Data about total fish was provided by 31 cohorts, including 103,934 cases. Survival was the end point in one cohort (Nube M [5]) and all-cause mortality was the end point in all other cohorts (Table 1).
Significant protective effects were found in 5 cohorts (Hirayama T [7], Albert CM [12], Yuan JM [17], Hu FB [19], Barzi F [20]) and in 2 subcohorts (Nube M, among men only [5], Tomasallo C, among referents only [31]). This analysis included 65,960 cases (63% of all cases).
After excluding the debatable results from Hirayama T [7], the analysis left 10,437 cases (22% of all cases). In addition, nonsignificant protective effects were found in 3 cohorts (Dolecek TA [8], Erkkilä AT [22], Yamagishi K [29], including 7,564 cases (16% of all cases).
But significantly increased risks were found in one cohort (Osler M [21]), and in one subcohort (Nube M, among women only [5]). The average RR = 0.83, but the effect size was cut in half after excluding the debatable results from Hirayama T: RR = 0.91.

Inclusion of intermediate levels of consumption:
Average RR's for intakes of < 1, 1, 2, and ≥ 3 servings/week were 0.98, 0.94, 0.94, and 0.91 after excluding results from Hirayama T. This analysis can be found here. Protective effects were found at different levels of consumption across the cohorts examined. Protective effects at any level of consumption were as follows:

  • Nube M [5]: Significant at consumption 4-16 times/month among men only.
  • Hirayama T [7]: Significant at consumption ≥ 1 time/month.
  • Albert CM [12]: Significant at ≥ 1 serving/week.
  • Gillum RF [15]: significant at consumption 1 time/week among white men only.
  • Yuan JM [17]: Significant at consumption ≥ 3.3 servings/week.
  • Barzi F [20]: Significant at consumption ≥ 2 times/week.
  • Erkkilä AT [22]: Significant at consumption ≥ 3.8 servings/week.
  • Nakamura Y [26]: Nonsignificant at consumption 3.5 servings/week.
  • Yamagishi K [29]: Nonsignificant at consumption 5.7 servings/week.
  • Tomasallo C [31]: Significant at consumption ≥ 1 time/week.

Effect modification: A detailed analysis can be found here. Briefly, stratified analysis showed the following effects:

  • Effects did not differ between men (RR = 0.90) and women (RR = 0.88).
  • Protective effects were stronger among US cohorts (RR = 0.88) and Asian cohorts (RR = 0.89) than among European cohorts (RR = 0.98).
  • Hardly any other possible effect modifiers were examined. No associations were found.

Subjects with prevalent heart disease: Data about subjects with prevalent CHD/MI was provided by 6 cohorts (Table 2). A significant protective effect was found in one cohort (Barzi F [20]). And a nonsignificant protective effect was found in one cohort of very small size (Erkkilä AT [22]). No other associations were found. The average RR was not calculated because relevant data was missing for 2 cohorts (Folsom AR [25], Iestra J [28]).
Subjects with prevalent diabetes: Data about subjects with prevalent diabetes was provided by 3 cohorts (Table 3). A significant protective effect was found in one cohort (Hu FB [19]). No other associations were found.
High-risk individuals based on blood pressure and/or serum cholesterol: Data about high-risk individuals was provided by 2 cohorts (Table 4). A nonsignificant protective effect was found in the US cohort (Dolecek TA [8]), while a significantly increased risk was found in the European cohort (Osler M [21]).

Conclusion: Significant protective effects of total fish consumption were found in 4 cohorts and in 2 subcohorts. In addition, nonsignificant protective effects were found in 3 cohorts. These 9 cohorts included 38% of all cases. Suggestive evidence was found that total fish consumption protects against all-cause mortality (- 9%). The level of consumption for this effect could not be clearly defined, but the effect size was strongest for the highest level of consumption (≥ 3 servings/week).
Stratified analysis showed that any possible protective effect seemed to be restricted to US (- 12%) and Asian (- 11%) cohorts, while no evidence for an association was found among European cohorts (- 2%). Effects did not seem to differ between men and women. Inconclusive evidence was found for an association among subjects with prevalent CHD or diabetes.