Systematic reviewindependent cross-checkabstract checked I-LEG-117 standard review
Diet and the risk of rheumatoid arthritis
Diet and the risk of rheumatoid arthritis - A systematic literature review.
Overview
Bäcklund R et al.. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2023 · PMID 36379128 · DOI 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2022.152118
Studies give no consistent picture; fish, vegetables and Mediterranean diets may protect, and legumes were not identified as a risk.
Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: moderate
Plain-language summary
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Review diet and RA risk.
- How was the study done?
Systematic review.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
27 studies.
- What was actually found?
Inconsistent; possible protective patterns.
- How large was the observed effect?
Not pooled.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
There is no good evidence that particular foods such as legumes cause RA.
- What are the study's limitations?
Heterogeneous.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
C-LEG-02 remains unsupported.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Applicable.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
It cannot exclude effects of single foods.
Scientific in-depth review
1. Full reference
- Authors
- Bäcklund R et al.
- Journal
- Semin Arthritis Rheum
- Year
- 2023
- Identifier
- PMID 36379128 DOI 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2022.152118
- Verification
- verified – PubMed efetch 2026-10-26 + Crossref works API
- Retracted
- no
- Corrections
- none
- Extent checked
- abstract only
- Conflicts of interest and funding
No competing interests declared.
2. Research question
Which dietary patterns, foods and nutrients are related to the risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis?
3. Study design and population
- Study design
- Systematic review – Systematic literature review (no meta-analysis); Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment
- Population
Cohort and case-control studies of RA risk
- Country
International
- Period
Not stated in abstract
- Sample size
19 cohort-based and 8 case-control studies
- Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Temporal relation between diet and RA diagnosis required.
4. Methods and endpoints
- Exposure / intervention
Dietary patterns, foods, food groups
- Comparator
Varied
- Endpoints
Incident RA
- Statistical methods
Narrative synthesis
5. Actual results
- Results
Possible protective effects of fish, vegetables and Mediterranean-style diets; results heterogeneous; no consistent evidence on the role of diet. No harmful association for legumes reported in the abstract.
- Absolute risks
Not applicable
- Authors' conclusion
There is a lack of consistent evidence on diet in RA development; more high-quality studies are needed.
6. Strengths
- Dual independent selection and quality appraisal
7. Weaknesses
- Heterogeneous exposures
- Abstract only
8. Risk of bias
- Orienting tool
- AMSTAR 2
- Type of assessment
- simplified assessment (abstract only)
- Full formal assessment
- no
- Overall risk of bias
- some concerns
- Rationale
Narrative synthesis.
9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation
Not applicable.
10. Relevance to the specific claim
Shows the diet-autoimmunity field is weakly studied; legumes are not identified as a risk factor for RA.
11. Independent contrary findings
None.
12. Transferability to Germany and Europe
Applicable.
13. Overall methodological judgement
Supports 'insufficiently studied / not supported' rather than 'refuted'.
| Multidimensional assessment | |
|---|---|
| Authenticity of the source | verified |
| Methodological quality | moderate |
| Risk of bias | some concerns |
| Precision of results | not applicable |
| Directness | indirect |
| Reproducibility | unknown |
| Consistency with the overall evidence | mixed |
| Regional transferability | moderate |
| Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive) | not applicable |
14. Open questions
Legume-specific analyses for RA, lupus and MS.
15. Linked fact checks
- Legumes, and fava beans in particular, cause autoimmune diseases. – Studies with mixed or unclear results