Meta-analysis2019

Red and Processed Meat Consumption and Risk for All-Cause Mortality and Cardiometabolic Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Cohort Studies

Zeraatkar D, Han MA, Guyatt GH, Vernooij RWM, El Dib R, Cheung K, Milio K, Zworth M, Bartoszko JJ, Valli C, Rabassa M, Lee Y, Zajac J, Prokop-Dorner A, Lo C, Bala MM, Alonso-Coello P, Hanna SE, Johnston BC

Annals of internal medicine · 159 citations

Review labels

Funding not disclosed

Neutral facts our review recorded about how this study was done. They describe method, never whether we like the result.

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
Funding not disclosed

Publication

Published
2019-10-01 · Ann Intern Med · vol. 171 · issue 10 · pp. 703–710
Publisher
American College of Physicians
Cited
245 citations · more than 100% of similar papers · 27.6× the field average
Impact
Top 10% most cited in its field
References
40 works
Access
Open access (repository copy) · CC-BY-NC-ND
Research areas
Nutritional Studies and Diet · Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact · Consumer Attitudes and Food Labeling
Keywords
Medicine, Red meat, CINAHL, MEDLINE, Environmental health, Cohort study, Internal medicine, Psychological intervention, Pathology
MeSH
humans, cardiovascular diseases, myocardial infarction, diabetes mellitus, type 2, diet, meat products, stroke, red meat

19 authors

From CA, KR, NL, PL, US, ES

  • Dena ZeraatkarMcMaster University
  • Mi Ah HanChosun University
  • Gordon Henry GuyattMcMaster University
  • Robin W.M. VernooijDalhousie University; Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation
  • Regina El DibDalhousie University
  • Kevin J. CheungMcMaster University

Abstract

This article has been corrected. The original version (PDF) is appended to this article as a Supplement.

Background

Dietary guidelines generally recommend limiting intake of red and processed meat. However, the quality of evidence implicating red and processed meat in adverse health outcomes remains unclear.

Purpose

To evaluate the association between red and processed meat consumption and all-cause mortality, cardiometabolic outcomes, quality of life, and satisfaction with diet among adults.

Data sources

EMBASE (Elsevier), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Wiley), Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics), CINAHL (EBSCO), and ProQuest from inception until July 2018 and MEDLINE from inception until April 2019, without language restrictions, as well as bibliographies of relevant articles.

Study selection

Cohort studies with at least 1000 participants that reported an association between unprocessed red or processed meat intake and outcomes of interest.

Data extraction

Teams of 2 reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. One investigator assessed certainty of evidence, and the senior investigator confirmed the assessments.

Data synthesis

Of 61 articles reporting on 55 cohorts with more than 4 million participants, none addressed quality of life or satisfaction with diet. Low-certainty evidence was found that a reduction in unprocessed red meat intake of 3 servings per week is associated with a very small reduction in risk for cardiovascular mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and type 2 diabetes. Likewise, low-certainty evidence was found that a reduction in processed meat intake of 3 servings per week is associated with a very small decrease in risk for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, stroke, MI, and type 2 diabetes.

Limitation

Inadequate adjustment for known confounders, residual confounding due to observational design, and recall bias associated with dietary measurement.

Conclusion

The magnitude of association between red and processed meat consumption and all-cause mortality and adverse cardiometabolic outcomes is very small, and the evidence is of low certainty.

Primary funding source

None. (PROSPERO: CRD42017074074).

Abstract via Europe PMC. Copyright remains with the authors or publisher.

Community trust

Loading…

How much do you trust this study's findings?

0 · not at all10 · completely

Comments

Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign in

Something 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 in

Educational information about published research. Not medical advice, and not a recommendation to start or stop anything.