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) · 13 citas
Etiquetas de revisión
Financiación no declaradaMezcla carne procesada con no procesadaDatos neutrales que nuestra revisión registró sobre cómo se hizo este estudio. Describen el método, nunca si nos gusta el resultado.
Cómo se estudió
- Diseño
- Metaanálisis (indexado por PubMed)
- Estudiado en
- Personas
- Resultado principal
- Marcadores de salud y funcionamiento
- Consumo medido con
- No se indica
Quién lo pagó
- Financiación
- Financiación no declarada
Publicación
- Publicado
- 2025-09-08 · Clin Nutr · vol. 54 · págs. 12–26
- Editorial
- Elsevier BV
- Citado
- 13 citas · más que el 95% de estudios similares · 3.7× el promedio de su campo
- Impacto
- Entre el 10 % más citado de su campo
- Referencias
- 95 trabajos
- Acceso
- Acceso abierto (revista híbrida) · CC-BY-NC-ND
- Áreas de investigación
- Nutritional Studies and Diet · Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact · Meat and Animal Product Quality
- Palabras clave
- 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 autores
- Miguel López‐Moreno🇪🇸 · autor de correspondenciaUniversidad Francisco de Vitoria
- José Francisco López‐Gil · autor de correspondencia
- Alfredo Bravo‐Sànchez🇪🇸Universidad Francisco de Vitoria
- Gabriele Bertotti🇪🇸Universidad Francisco de Vitoria
- Alberto Roldán-Ruiz🇪🇸Universidad Francisco de Vitoria
Resumen
El texto original del estudio, en el idioma en que se publicó.
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.
Resumen vía Europe PMC. Los derechos de autor siguen siendo de los autores o la editorial (CC BY-NC-ND).
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.