Back to all available

Association between dietary inflammatory index and stroke risk: A Meta-analysis

neurology
nutrition

Abstract

Background. Dietary Inflammatory Index (DII) represents a novel indicator measuring the inflammatory potential of dietary patterns. Prior research has proved the relations of DII to varied disease risks. Nevertheless, the relationship of DII with stroke remains inconclusive. Our meta-analysis endeavors to elucidate the relation of DII to stroke risk.

Methods. PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, as well as Web of Science were retrieved before May 2025. Study quality was rated as per the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) criteria. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed utilizing a random-effects model.

Results. 12 studies were encompassed, comprising seven cross-sectional and five cohort studies on 469,668 participants. The highest DII group exhibited a higher likelihood of stroke than the lowest DII cohort (OR 1.56; 95% CI 1.32-1.85). Stratified analyses by study design yielded pooled ORs of 1.63 (95% CI 1.46-1.82) and 1.47 (95% CI 1.08-1.98) for cross-sectional and cohort studies. Stratification by region demonstrated significant associations in America (OR 1.63; 95% CI 1.46-1.82), Asia (OR 1.79; 95% CI 1.38-2.32), and Europe (OR 1.11; 95% CI 1.03-1.20).

Conclusions. Pro-inflammatory diets, featuring a high DII score, are associated with a greater probability of stroke. These findings underscore the possible value of reducing pro-inflammatory dietary components as a preventive strategy against stroke. Future prospective and multicenter investigations are warranted to further substantiate this association.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].