Table 1
Parameters | SMD | 95 % CI | Effect magnitude* | Inconsistency† | Precision‡ | Publication bias§ | Overall reliability |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Antioxidant activity | 1·11 | 0·43, 1·79 | Moderate | Medium | Poor | None | Moderate |
FRAP | 0·59 | − 0·89, 2·06 | Moderate | Low | Poor | Medium | Moderate |
ORAC | 1·92 | − 0·86, 4·71 | Large | Low | Poor | Strong | Low |
TEAC | 0·25 | 0·02, 0·48 | Small | Medium | High | Medium | Good |
Phenolic compounds (total) | 0·52 | 0·00, 1·05 | Small | Medium | Moderate | None | Moderate |
Flavonoids (total) | 1·64 | 0·09, 3·19 | Large | Medium | Poor | Medium | Moderate |
Phenolic acids (total) | 0·81 | 0·18, 1·44 | Small | Low | Moderate | Strong | Low |
Phenolic acids∥ | 0·59 | 0·11, 1·07 | Small | Medium | Moderate | None | Moderate |
Chlorogenic acid | 1·58 | − 0·32, 3·49 | Large | High | Poor | Medium | Low |
Flavanones∥ | 4·76 | 0·54, 8·98 | Large | Medium | Moderate | None | Moderate |
Stilbenes | 0·74 | 0·19, 1·28 | Small | Low | Moderate | Medium | Moderate |
Flavones and flavonols | 1·74 | 1·21, 2·28 | Large | Medium | High | None | Good |
Flavones | 0·95 | 0·39, 1·51 | Moderate | Medium | Moderate | None | Moderate |
Flavonols∥ | 1·97 | 1·31, 2·64 | Large | Medium | High | None | Good |
Quercetin | 0·55 | − 0·58, 1·69 | Small | Low | Poor | Medium | Low |
Rutin | 1·10 | − 0·31, 2·50 | Moderate | Medium | Poor | None | Low |
Kaempferol | 1·34 | 0·19, 2·50 | Moderate | Low | Poor | None | Low |
Anthocyanins (total) | 1·60 | 0·59, 2·62 | Large | Low | Moderate | Medium | Moderate |
Anthocyanins | 3·81 | 1·53, 6·09 | Large | Medium | High | Medium | Moderate |
Carotenoids (total) | 7·98 | − 6·22, 22·18 | Large | Medium | Poor | Strong | Low |
Carotenoids∥ | 0·47 | − 0·13, 1·07 | Small | Medium | Poor | None | Low |
Xanthophylls∥ | 1·06 | 0·18, 1·94 | Moderate | Medium | Poor | Medium | Low |
Lutein | 0·51 | − 0·27, 1·29 | Small | Medium | Poor | Medium | Low |
Ascorbic acid | 0·33 | 0·06, 0·60 | Small | Medium | Moderate | None | Moderate |
Vitamin E | − 0·23 | − 0·46, 0·00 | Small | Low | Moderate | None | Moderate |
Carbohydrates (total) | 1·54 | 0·10, 2·99 | Large | Low | Poor | Medium | Low |
Carbohydrates∥ | 0·46 | 0·00, 0·91 | Small | Medium | Moderate | None | Moderate |
Sugars (reducing) | 0·21 | − 0·23, 0·65 | Small | Low | Moderate | None | Moderate |
Protein (total) | − 3·01 | − 5·18, − 0·84 | Large | Medium | Moderate | Medium | Moderate |
Amino acids∥ | − 0·82 | − 1·14, − 0·50 | Small | Medium | High | Medium | Moderate |
DM∥ | 1·31 | − 0·65, 3·28 | Moderate | Medium | Poor | Medium | Low |
Fibre | − 0·42 | − 0·76, − 0·07 | Small | Low | Moderate | None | Moderate |
N | − 0·88 | − 1·59, − 0·17 | Moderate | Low | Moderate | Medium | Low |
∥ | − 0·50 | − 1·73, 0·73 | Small | Medium | Poor | Medium | Low |
− 0·11 | − 0·38, 0·16 | Small | Low | High | None | Moderate | |
Cd | − 1·45 | − 2·52, − 0·39 | Moderate | Medium | Moderate | Medium | Moderate |
FRAP, ferric reducing antioxidant potential; ORAC, oxygen radical absorbance capacity; TEAC, Trolox equivalent antioxidant capacity.
*Study quality was considered low because of high risks of bias and potential for
confounding. However, we considered large effects to mitigate this sensu
GRADE; large effects were defined as >20 %, moderate effects as 10–20 % and small as
< 10 %.
†Inconsistency was based on the measure of heterogeneity and the consistency of effect
direction sensu GRADE.
‡Precision was based on the width of the pooled effect CI and the extent of overlap in the
substantive interpretation of effect magnitude sensu GRADE.
§Publication bias was assessed using visual inspection of funnel plots, Egger tests, two
fail-safe number tests, and trim and fill (see online supplementary Table S13). Overall
publication bias was considered high when indicated by two or more methods, moderate when
indicated by one method, and low when indicated by none of the methods. The overall quality
of evidence was then assessed across domains as in standard GRADE appraisal.
∥Outlying data pairs (where the mean percentage difference between the organic and
conventional food samples was over fifty times higher than the mean value including
outliers) were removed.