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 citas
Cómo se estudió
- Diseño
- Metaanálisis (indexado por PubMed)
- Estudiado en
- Personas
- Resultado principal
- Eventos clínicos como enfermedad o muerte
- Consumo medido con
- No se indica
Quién lo pagó
- Financiación
- Financiación independiente
- Gobierno
- National Natural Science Foundation of China
- Subvenciones
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (81370966)
Según 1 financiador declarado.
Publicación
- Publicado
- 2015-07-06 · Public Health Nutr · vol. 19 · número 5 · págs. 893–905
- Editorial
- Cambridge University Press
- Citado
- 421 citas · más que el 96% de estudios similares · 4.3× el promedio de su campo
- Impacto
- Entre el 10 % más citado de su campo
- Referencias
- 57 trabajos
- Acceso
- Lectura gratuita
- Áreas de investigación
- Nutritional Studies and Diet · Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact · Meat and Animal Product Quality
- Palabras clave
- 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 autores
- Xia Wang🇨🇳Shandong University; Shandong Maternal and Child Health Hospital
- Xinying Lin🇨🇳Shandong University
- Ying Y. Ouyang🇨🇳Huazhong University of Science and Technology
- Jun Liu🇨🇳Huazhong University of Science and Technology
- Gang Zhao🇨🇳Shandong University; Shandong Provincial Hospital
- An Pan🇨🇳 · autor de correspondenciaHuazhong University of Science and Technology
- Frank B. Hu🇺🇸 · autor de correspondenciaHarvard University
Resumen
El texto original del estudio, en el idioma en que se publicó.
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.
Resumen vía Europe PMC. Los derechos de autor siguen siendo de los autores o la editorial.
Confianza de la comunidad
Cargando…
¿Cuánto confías en los hallazgos de este estudio?
Comentarios
¿Algo está mal aquí?
Señala este estudio si su información, etiquetas o financiación parecen incorrectas. Un editor revisa cada señalamiento.
Información educativa sobre investigación publicada. No es consejo médico ni una recomendación para empezar o dejar nada.