Red/processed meat consumption and non-cancer-related outcomes in humans: umbrella review
Zhang X, Liang S, Chen X, Yang J, Zhou Y, Du L, Li K
The British journal of nutrition · 23 citas
Etiquetas de revisión
Financiación no declaradaDatos neutrales que nuestra revisión registró sobre cómo se hizo este estudio. Describen el método, nunca si nos gusta el resultado.
Cómo se estudió
- Diseño
- Revisión sistemática (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 no declarada
Publicación
- Publicado
- 2022-12-22 · Br J Nutr · vol. 130 · número 3 · págs. 484–494
- Editorial
- Cambridge University Press
- Citado
- 35 citas · más que el 96% de estudios similares · 5.1× el promedio de su campo
- Impacto
- Entre el 10 % más citado de su campo
- Referencias
- 62 trabajos
- Acceso
- De pago
- Áreas de investigación
- Nutritional Studies and Diet · Consumer Attitudes and Food Labeling · Meat and Animal Product Quality
- Palabras clave
- Red meat, Processed meat, Medicine, Meta-analysis, Cochrane Library, Diabetes mellitus, Stroke (engine), Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, Environmental health, Internal medicine, Food science, Endocrinology, Pathology, Biology
- MeSH
- humans, diabetes mellitus, type 2, diet, risk factors, meat, meat products, meta-analysis as topic, stroke, red meat, systematic reviews as topic
7 autores
- Xingxia Zhang🇨🇳Sichuan University; West China Hospital of Sichuan University
- Shiqi Liang🇨🇳Sichuan University; West China Medical Center of Sichuan University
- Xinrong Chen🇨🇳Sichuan University; West China Medical Center of Sichuan University
- Jie Yang🇨🇳Sichuan University
- Yong Zhou🇨🇳Sichuan University
- Liang Du
- Ka Li🇨🇳 · autor de correspondenciaSichuan University; West China Medical Center of Sichuan University
Resumen
El texto original del estudio, en el idioma en que se publicó.
The associations of red/processed meat consumption and cancer-related health outcomes have been well discussed. The umbrella review aimed to summarise the associations of red/processed meat consumption and various non-cancer-related outcomes in humans. We systematically searched the systematic reviews and meta-analyses of associations between red/processed meat intake and health outcomes from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library databases. The umbrella review has been registered in PROSPERO (CRD 42021218568). A total of 40 meta-analyses were included. High consumption of red meat, particularly processed meat, was associated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality, CVD and metabolic outcomes. Dose-response analysis revealed that an additional 100 g/d red meat intake was positively associated with a 17 % increased risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), 15 % increased risk of CHD, 14 % of hypertension and 12 % of stroke. The highest dose-response/50 g increase in processed meat consumption at 95 % confident levels was 1·37, 95 % CI (1·22, 1·55) for T2DM, 1·27, 95 % CI (1·09, 1·49) for CHD, 1·17, 95 % CI (1·02, 1·34) for stroke, 1·15, 95 % CI (1·11, 1·19) for all-cause mortality and 1·08, 95 % CI (1·02, 1·14) for heart failure. In addition, red/processed meat intake was associated with several other health-related outcomes. Red and processed meat consumption seems to be more harmful than beneficial to human health in this umbrella review. It is necessary to take the impacts of red/processed meat consumption on non-cancer-related outcomes into consideration when developing new dietary guidelines, which will be of great public health importance. However, more additional randomised controlled trials are warranted to clarify the causality.
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.