Red and processed meat consumption and mortality: dose-response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies
Wang X, Lin X, Ouyang YY, Liu J, Zhao G, Pan A, Hu FB
Public health nutrition · 260 citations
How it was studied
- Design
- Meta-analysis (indexed by PubMed)
- Studied in
- People
- Main outcome
- Clinical events such as disease or death
- Intake measured by
- Not stated
Who paid for it
- Funding
- Independent funding
- Government
- National Natural Science Foundation of China
- Grants
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (81370966)
Based on 1 listed funder(s).
Publication
- Published
- 2015-07-06 · Public Health Nutr · vol. 19 · issue 5 · pp. 893–905
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press
- Cited
- 421 citations · more than 96% of similar papers · 4.3× the field average
- Impact
- Top 10% most cited in its field
- References
- 57 works
- Access
- Free to read
- Research areas
- Nutritional Studies and Diet · Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact · Meat and Animal Product Quality
- Keywords
- Medicine, Meta-analysis, Relative risk, Prospective cohort study, Red meat, Confidence interval, Cohort study, Cochrane Library, Processed meat, Risk of mortality, MEDLINE, Demography, Environmental health, Internal medicine, Food science, Pathology, Biology
- MeSH
- humans, neoplasms, cardiovascular diseases, linear models, risk factors, sensitivity and specificity, reproducibility of results, meat products, databases, factual, red meat
7 authors
From CN, US
- Xia WangShandong University; Shandong Maternal and Child Health Hospital
- Xinying LinShandong University
- Ying Y. OuyangHuazhong University of Science and Technology
- Jun LiuHuazhong University of Science and Technology
- Gang ZhaoShandong University; Shandong Provincial Hospital
- An Pan · correspondingHuazhong University of Science and Technology
Abstract
Objective
To examine and quantify the potential dose-response relationship between red and processed meat consumption and risk of all-cause, cardiovascular and cancer mortality.
Design
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, ISI Web of Knowledge, CINHAL, Scopus, the Cochrane library and reference lists of retrieved articles up to 30 November 2014 without language restrictions. We retrieved prospective cohort studies that reported risk estimates for all-cause, cardiovascular and cancer mortality by red and/or processed meat intake levels. The dose-response relationships were estimated using data from red and processed meat intake categories in each study. Random-effects models were used to calculate pooled relative risks and 95 % confidence intervals and to incorporate between-study variations.
Results
Nine articles with seventeen prospective cohorts were eligible in this meta-analysis, including a total of 150 328 deaths. There was evidence of a non-linear association between processed meat consumption and risk of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, but not for cancer mortality. For processed meat, the pooled relative risk with an increase of one serving per day was 1·15 (95 % CI 1·11, 1·19) for all-cause mortality (five studies; P<0·001 for linear trend), 1·15 (95 % CI 1·07, 1·24) for cardiovascular mortality (six studies; P<0·001) and 1·08 (95 % CI 1·06, 1·11) for cancer mortality (five studies; P<0·001). Similar associations were found with total meat intake. The association between unprocessed red meat consumption and mortality risk was found in the US populations, but not in European or Asian populations.
Conclusions
The present meta-analysis indicates that higher consumption of total red meat and processed meat is associated with an increased risk of total, cardiovascular and cancer mortality.
Abstract via Europe PMC. Copyright remains with the authors or publisher.
Community trust
Loading…
How much do you trust this study's findings?
Comments
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inSomething wrong here?
Flag this study if its information, labels or funding look wrong. An editor reviews every flag.
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inEducational information about published research. Not medical advice, and not a recommendation to start or stop anything.