Systematic review2019

Effect of Lower Versus Higher Red Meat Intake on Cardiometabolic and Cancer Outcomes: A Systematic Review of Randomized Trials

Zeraatkar D, Johnston BC, Bartoszko J, Cheung K, Bala MM, Valli C, Rabassa M, Sit D, Milio K, Sadeghirad B, Agarwal A, Zea AM, Lee Y, Han MA, Vernooij RWM, Alonso-Coello P, Guyatt GH, El Dib R

Annals of internal medicine · 80 citations

Review labels

Funding not disclosedLumps processed with unprocessed meat

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
Systematic review (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. 721–731
Publisher
American College of Physicians
Cited
133 citations · more than 100% of similar papers · 17.4× the field average
Impact
Top 10% most cited in its field
References
68 works
Access
Open access (repository copy) · CC-BY-NC-ND
Research areas
Nutritional Studies and Diet · Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact · Meat and Animal Product Quality
Keywords
Medicine, Cancer, Red meat, Internal medicine, Food science, Environmental health, Pathology
MeSH
humans, neoplasms, cardiovascular diseases, diet, randomized controlled trials as topic, red meat

18 authors

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

  • Dena ZeraatkarMcMaster University
  • Bradley C. JohnstonMcMaster University
  • Jessica Julia BartoszkoMcMaster University
  • Kevin J. CheungMcMaster University
  • Małgorzata Maria BałaJagiellonian University
  • Claudia ValliBiomedical Research Institute; Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre

Abstract

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

Background

Few randomized trials have evaluated the effect of reducing red meat intake on clinically important outcomes.

Purpose

To summarize the effect of lower versus higher red meat intake on the incidence of cardiometabolic and cancer outcomes in adults.

Data sources

EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Web of Science, and ProQuest from inception to July 2018 and MEDLINE from inception to April 2019, without language restrictions.

Study selection

Randomized trials (published in any language) comparing diets lower in red meat with diets higher in red meat that differed by a gradient of at least 1 serving per week for 6 months or more.

Data extraction

Teams of 2 reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence.

Data synthesis

Of 12 eligible trials, a single trial enrolling 48 835 women provided the most credible, though still low-certainty, evidence that diets lower in red meat may have little or no effect on all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.99 [95% CI, 0.95 to 1.03]), cardiovascular mortality (HR, 0.98 [CI, 0.91 to 1.06]), and cardiovascular disease (HR, 0.99 [CI, 0.94 to 1.05]). That trial also provided low- to very-low-certainty evidence that diets lower in red meat may have little or no effect on total cancer mortality (HR, 0.95 [CI, 0.89 to 1.01]) and the incidence of cancer, including colorectal cancer (HR, 1.04 [CI, 0.90 to 1.20]) and breast cancer (HR, 0.97 [0.90 to 1.04]).

Limitations

There were few trials, most addressing only surrogate outcomes, with heterogeneous comparators and small gradients in red meat consumption between lower versus higher intake groups.

Conclusion

Low- to very-low-certainty evidence suggests that diets restricted in red meat may have little or no effect on major cardiometabolic outcomes and cancer mortality and incidence.

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.