SynthesisNutrition reviews2026
The Certainty of the Evidence on Plant- vs Meat-Predominant Dietary Patterns and Depression: An Umbrella Review.
Synthesis in Nutrition reviews, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextDiets rich in plant foods are associated with reduced risk of depressive symptoms. However, previous studies have reported greater depressive symptomology in patients who follow a plant-predominant dietary pattern. Meta-analyses and systematic reviews of associations of plant- and meat-predominant diets and depression have highlighted conflicting results.
objectivesIn this umbrella review we applied A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR2) to explore the state of evidence regarding possible associations of plant- and meat-predominant dietary patterns with depression. DATA SOURCES: Six databases were searched from the date of inception to January 2025: CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, Scopus, and Web of Science. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted by 2 independent researchers using Covidence software. DATA ANALYSIS: The search revealed 104 studies, of which 9 met inclusion criteria. Data were synthesized and narratively grouped by plant-predominant and meat-predominant dietary patterns.
conclusionsFive articles reported associations between plant- and meat-predominant dietary patterns and depression, 4 reported that plant-predominant dietary patterns increased depression, and 5 found conflicting or no associations. Similar systematic search terms, overlap of primary studies, and short timeframes between reviews raise concerns about the validity and scientific contribution of repeated systematic review of this topic. To address these concerns, we highlight the need for greater awareness of methodological issues, including high reliance on observational studies, high levels of heterogeneity, imprecision of measurement tools, and lack of measurement of dietary adherence and composition.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.