Effect of red meat consumption on cardiovascular risk factors: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
López-Moreno M, López-Gil JF, Bravo-Sánchez A, Bertotti G, Roldán-Ruiz A
Clinical nutrition (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 11 citations
Review labels
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
- Health markers and function
- Intake measured by
- Not stated
Who paid for it
- Funding
- Funding not disclosed
Publication
- Published
- 2025-09-08 · Clin Nutr · vol. 54 · pp. 12–26
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Cited
- 13 citations · more than 95% of similar papers · 3.7× the field average
- Impact
- Top 10% most cited in its field
- References
- 95 works
- Access
- Open access (hybrid journal) · CC-BY-NC-ND
- Research areas
- Nutritional Studies and Diet · Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact · Meat and Animal Product Quality
- Keywords
- Red meat, Randomized controlled trial, Consumption (sociology), Bayesian network, Risk assessment, Bayesian probability
- MeSH
- humans, cardiovascular diseases, diet, bayes theorem, male, randomized controlled trials as topic, red meat, heart disease risk factors
5 authors
From ES
- Miguel López‐Moreno · correspondingUniversidad Francisco de Vitoria
- José Francisco López‐Gil · corresponding
- Alfredo Bravo‐SànchezUniversidad Francisco de Vitoria
- Gabriele BertottiUniversidad Francisco de Vitoria
- Alberto Roldán-RuizUniversidad Francisco de Vitoria
Abstract
Background & aims
The role of red meat in cardiovascular risk remains controversial. The aim of this systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was to investigate the effects of red meat consumption on cardiovascular risk factors concerning different comparison foods.
Methods
A systematic search of RCTs was conducted from the inception to April 2024. Studies compared diets containing red meat to those replacing red meat with various foods. Comparison diets were classified into high-quality plant protein sources, animal protein, mixed animal and plant protein and carbohydrates. The effects of the dietary interventions on cardiovascular parameters were evaluated using a random-effects NMA, with an analysis of interactions between the intervention and control groups. The outcomes were the mean changes in blood lipids, blood pressure, and C-reactive protein (CRP) in the red meat group compared to the comparator group.
Results
Thirty-six RCTs were included in the analysis. Consuming plant proteins resulted in a greater reduction in total cholesterol (TC) levels (mean difference (MD) = -0.14; 95 % credible interval (CrI): -0.28 to -0.001, p < 0.05) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels (MD = -0.19; 95 % CrI: -0.36 to -0.03, p < 0.05) compared to red meat interventions. In contrast, interventions combining animal and plant proteins increased TG levels more than red meat interventions (MD = 0.21; 95 % CrI: 0.06 to 0.34, p < 0.05). The certainty of the evidence for all outcomes ranged from very low to low.
Conclusion
The findings of this NMA indicate that the effect of red meat on cardiovascular risk factors depends on the comparison food. Replacing red meat with plant protein sources was associated with favorable changes in TC levels and LDL-C. REGISTRY AND REGISTRY NUMBER FOR SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS OR META-ANALYSES: CRD42024537865 https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42024537865.
Abstract via Europe PMC. Copyright remains with the authors or publisher (CC BY-NC-ND).
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.