Systematic review2025Industry fundedOpen access

Funded in part by National Cattlemen's Beef Association, National Cattlemen's Beef Association

The Effect of Red Meat Consumption on Circulating, Urinary, and Fecal Trimethylamine-N-Oxide: A Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Jafari F, Damani JJ, Petersen KS

Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2 citations

Review labels

Author industry tiesIndustry fundedLumps 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
Health markers and function
Intake measured by
Not stated

Who paid for it

Funding
Industry funded
Industry group
National Cattlemen's Beef Association
Industry group
National Cattlemen's Beef Association
Authors
At least one author declares a financial tie to industry

Based on 2 listed funder(s) and full-text disclosure statement.

Publication

Published
2025-05-24 · Adv Nutr · vol. 16 · issue 7 · p. 100453
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Cited
5 citations · more than 78% of similar papers · 1.4× the field average
References
48 works
Access
Open access (hybrid journal) · CC-BY
Research areas
Nutritional Studies and Diet · Gut microbiota and health · Diet and metabolism studies
Keywords
Trimethylamine, Feces, Randomized controlled trial, Urinary system, Trimethylamine N-oxide, Food science, Consumption (sociology), Urine, Medicine, Chemistry, Gastroenterology, Internal medicine, Biochemistry, Microbiology, Biology, Philosophy
MeSH
feces, humans, cardiovascular diseases, methylamines, diet, adult, middle aged, female, male, randomized controlled trials as topic, red meat

3 authors

From US

  • Fatemeh JafariPennsylvania State University
  • Janhavi J DamaniPennsylvania State University
  • Kristina S. Petersen · correspondingPennsylvania State University

Abstract

Cardiovascular concerns exist about the effect of red meat on circulating concentrations of trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO), an emerging cardiovascular disease risk factor. The aim was to conduct a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the effect of higher red meat intake, compared with lower intake, on circulating, urinary, and fecal TMAO concentrations in generally healthy adults and/or adults with stable chronic diseases. A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed, the Cochrane Collaboration Library, and Web of Science. RCTs examining the effect of a ≥7-d dietary intervention featuring red meat on urinary, fecal, and/or circulating (plasma or serum) concentrations of TMAO in adults (≥18 y) were included. Eligible trials had a comparator group/condition that was exposed to a dietary intervention for ≥ 7 d lower in red meat and featuring white meat, fish, eggs, dairy, or plant-based protein sources. In total, 375 publications were identified. Fifteen publications reporting the results of 13 RCTs (n = 553; median duration 28 d), including 15 diet comparisons, were eligible. In 6 comparisons, higher circulating or urinary TMAO concentrations were observed after higher red meat intake (∼71-420 g/d) compared with comparator conditions lower in red meat. In 7 comparisons, no differences in serum/plasma TMAO concentrations were observed with higher red meat-containing diets (∼60-156 g/d) compared with diets lower in red meat. Two comparisons showed that consuming higher red meat diets lowered TMAO concentrations after 28 d compared with lower red meat diets containing seafood. In short-term studies (median duration of 28 d), higher red meat intake had inconsistent effects on circulating and urinary TMAO concentrations. Further high-quality research on red meat-related TMAO modulation, including effect magnitude and clinical relevance, is needed. This study was registered at Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) as CRD42023396799.

Abstract via Europe PMC. Copyright remains with the authors or publisher (CC BY).

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.