Background: The relationship between dietary sodium intake and blood pressure (BP) has been tested in clinical trials and nonexperimental human studies, indicating a direct association. The exact shape of the dose–response relationship has been difficult to assess in clinical trials because of the lack of random-effects dose–response statistical models that can include 2-arm comparisons. Methods: After performing a comprehensive literature search for experimental studies that investigated the BP effects of changes in dietary sodium intake, we conducted a dose–response meta-analysis using the new 1-stage cubic spline mixed-effects model. We included trials with at least 4 weeks of follow-up; 24-hour urinary sodium excretion measurements; sodium manipulation through dietary change or supplementation, or both; and measurements of systolic and diastolic BP at the beginning and end of treatment. Results: We identified 85 eligible trials with sodium intake ranging from 0.4 to 7.6 g/d and follow-up from 4 weeks to 36 months. The trials were conducted in participants with hypertension (n=65), without hypertension (n=11), or a combination (n=9). Overall, the pooled data were compatible with an approximately linear relationship between achieved sodium intake and mean systolic as well as diastolic BP, with no indication of a flattening of the curve at either the lowest or highest levels of sodium exposure. Results were similar for participants with or without hypertension, but the former group showed a steeper decrease in BP after sodium reduction. Intervention duration (≥12 weeks versus 4 to 11 weeks), type of study design (parallel or crossover), use of antihypertensive medication, and participants’ sex had little influence on the BP effects of sodium reduction. Additional analyses based on the BP effect of difference in sodium exposure between study arms at the end of the trial confirmed the results on the basis of achieved sodium intake. Conclusions: In this dose–response analysis of sodium reduction in clinical trials, we identified an approximately linear relationship between sodium intake and reduction in both systolic and diastolic BP across the entire range of dietary sodium exposure. Although this occurred independently of baseline BP, the effect of sodium reduction on level of BP was more pronounced in participants with a higher BP level.

Background: Epidemiologic studies, including trials, suggest an association between potassium intake and blood pressure ( BP ). However, the strength and shape of this relationship is uncertain. Methods and Results: We performed a meta‐analysis to explore the dose‐response relationship between potassium supplementation and BP in randomized‐controlled trials with a duration ≥4 weeks using the recently developed 1‐stage cubic spline regression model. This model allows use of trials with at least 2 exposure categories. We identified 32 eligible trials. Most were conducted in adults with hypertension using a crossover design and potassium supplementation doses that ranged from 30 to 140 mmol/d. We observed a U‐shaped relationship between 24‐hour active and control arm differences in potassium excretion and BP levels, with weakening of the BP reduction effect above differences of 30 mmol/d and a BP increase above differences ≈80 mmol/d. Achieved potassium excretion analysis also identified a U‐shaped relationship. The BP ‐lowering effects of potassium supplementation were stronger in participants with hypertension and at higher levels of sodium intake. The BP increase with high potassium excretion was noted in participants with antihypertensive drug‐treated hypertension but not in their untreated counterparts. Conclusions: We identified a nonlinear relationship between potassium intake and both systolic and diastolic BP , although estimates for BP effects of high potassium intakes should be interpreted with caution because of limited availability of trials. Our findings indicate an adequate intake of potassium is desirable to achieve a lower BP level but suggest excessive potassium supplementation should be avoided, particularly in specific subgroups.

Background This review is the third update of the Cochrane review "Selenium for preventing cancer". Selenium is a naturally occurring element with both nutritional and toxicological properties. Higher selenium exposure and selenium supplements have been suggested to protect against several types of cancer. Objectives To gather and present evidence needed to address two research questions: 1. What is the aetiological relationship between selenium exposure and cancer risk in humans? 2. Describe the efficacy of selenium supplementation for cancer prevention in humans. Search methods We updated electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 2), MEDLINE (Ovid, 2013 to January 2017, week 4), and Embase (2013 to 2017, week 6), as well as searches of clinical trial registries. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and longitudinal observational studies that enrolled adult participants. Data collection and analysis We performed random‐effects (RE) meta‐analyses when two or more RCTs were available for a specific outcome. We conducted RE meta‐analyses when five or more observational studies were available for a specific outcome. We assessed risk of bias in RCTs and in observational studies using Cochrane's risk assessment tool and the Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale, respectively. We considered in the primary analysis data pooled from RCTs with low risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence by using the GRADE approach. Main results We included 83 studies in this updated review: two additional RCTs (10 in total) and a few additional trial reports for previously included studies. RCTs involved 27,232 participants allocated to either selenium supplements or placebo. For analyses of RCTs with low risk of bias, the summary risk ratio (RR) for any cancer incidence was 1.01 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.10; 3 studies, 19,475 participants; high‐certainty evidence). The RR for estimated cancer mortality was 1.02 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.30; 1 study, 17,444 participants). For the most frequently investigated site‐specific cancers, investigators provided little evidence of any effect of selenium supplementation. Two RCTs with 19,009 participants indicated that colorectal cancer was unaffected by selenium administration (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.43), as were non‐melanoma skin cancer (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.30 to 4.42; 2 studies, 2027 participants), lung cancer (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.50; 2 studies, 19,009 participants), breast cancer (RR 2.04, 95% CI 0.44 to 9.55; 1 study, 802 participants), bladder cancer (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.52; 2 studies, 19,009 participants), and prostate cancer (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.14; 4 studies, 18,942 participants). Certainty of the evidence was high for all of these cancer sites, except for breast cancer, which was of moderate certainty owing to imprecision, and non‐melanoma skin cancer, which we judged as moderate certainty owing to high heterogeneity. RCTs with low risk of bias suggested increased melanoma risk. Results for most outcomes were similar when we included all RCTs in the meta‐analysis, regardless of risk of bias. Selenium supplementation did not reduce overall cancer incidence (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.14; 5 studies, 21,860 participants) nor mortality (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.32; 2 studies, 18,698 participants). Summary RRs for site‐specific cancers showed limited changes compared with estimates from high‐quality studies alone, except for liver cancer, for which results were reversed. In the largest trial, the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Trial, selenium supplementation increased risks of alopecia and dermatitis, and for participants with highest background selenium status, supplementation also increased risk of high‐grade prostate cancer. RCTs showed a slightly increased risk of type 2 diabetes associated with supplementation. A hypothesis generated by the Nutritional Prevention of Cancer Trial ‐ that individuals with low blood selenium levels could reduce their risk of cancer (particularly prostate cancer) by increasing selenium intake ‐ has not been confirmed. As RCT participants have been overwhelmingly male (88%), we could not assess the potential influence of sex or gender. We included 15 additional observational cohort studies (70 in total; over 2,360,000 participants). We found that lower cancer incidence (summary odds ratio (OR) 0.72, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.93; 7 studies, 76,239 participants) and lower cancer mortality (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.97; 7 studies, 183,863 participants) were associated with the highest category of selenium exposure compared with the lowest. Cancer incidence was lower in men (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.14, 4 studies, 29,365 men) than in women (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.77, 2 studies, 18,244 women). Data show a decrease in risk of site‐specific cancers for stomach, colorectal, lung, breast, bladder, and prostate cancers. However, these studies have major weaknesses due to study design, exposure misclassification, and potential unmeasured confounding due to lifestyle or nutritional factors covarying with selenium exposure beyond those taken into account in multi‐variable analyses. In addition, no evidence of a dose‐response relation between selenium status and cancer risk emerged. Certainty of evidence was very low for each outcome. Some studies suggested that genetic factors might modify the relation between selenium and cancer risk ‐ an issue that merits further investigation. Authors' conclusions Well‐designed and well‐conducted RCTs have shown no beneficial effect of selenium supplements in reducing cancer risk (high certainty of evidence). Some RCTs have raised concerns by reporting a higher incidence of high‐grade prostate cancer and type 2 diabetes in participants with selenium supplementation. No clear evidence...

The objective of this paper is to explain how to apply, interpret, and present the results of a new instrument to assess the risk of bias (RoB) in non-randomized studies (NRS) dealing with effects of environmental exposures on health outcomes. This instrument is modeled on the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) instrument. The RoB instrument for NRS of exposures assesses RoB along a standardized comparison to a randomized target experiment, instead of the study-design directed RoB approach. We provide specific guidance for the integral steps of developing a research question and target experiment, distinguishing issues of indirectness from RoB, making individual-study judgments, and performing and interpreting sensitivity analyses for RoB judgments across a body of evidence. Also, we present an approach for integrating the RoB assessments within the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework to assess the certainty of the evidence in the systematic review. Finally, we guide the reader through an overall assessment to support the rating of all domains that determine the certainty of a body of evidence using the GRADE approach.