This scoping review synthesized 95 observational articles, including longitudinal (54%), cross-sectional (37%), and case-control (9%) studies, to map evidence on the plant-based dietary index (PDI), healthful PDI (hPDI), and unhealthful PDI (uPDI).
Frontiers in Nutrition · 3 authors, 1 centre
This summary was generated by AI from a single paper. It has not been reviewed by a clinician and is not clinical advice. Verify against the source before acting on it.
This scoping review synthesized 95 observational articles, including longitudinal (54%), cross-sectional (37%), and case-control (9%) studies, to map evidence on the plant-based dietary index (PDI), healthful PDI (hPDI), and unhealthful PDI (uPDI).
This scoping review synthesized 95 observational articles, including longitudinal (54%), cross-sectional (37%), and case-control (9%) studies, to map evidence on the plant-based dietary index (PDI), healthful PDI (hPDI), and unhealthful PDI (uPDI). The median sample size was 3,646. The central finding was that a higher hPDI level was associated with favorable health outcomes in 36.2% of comparisons, significantly more than the PDI (24.6%) and the uPDI (2.0%). Conversely, a higher uPDI level was associated with unfavorable outcomes in 32.5% of comparisons. When associations for hPDI and uPDI were discordant, results always favored the hPDI. Limitations include the observational design of all included studies, preventing causal inference, and the descriptive, non-quantitative synthesis. The findings suggest that accounting for plant food quality in dietary indices reveals stronger health associations than generic plant-based measures, with implications for nutrition guidelines.