Processed meat intake and chronic disease morbidity and mortality: An overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

Autoři: Mina Nicole Händel aff001;  Isabel Cardoso aff001;  Katrine Marie Rasmussen aff001;  Jeanett Friis Rohde aff001;  Ramune Jacobsen aff001;  Sabrina Mai Nielsen aff001;  Robin Christensen aff001;  Berit Lilienthal Heitmann aff001
Působiště autorů: The Parker Institute, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark aff001;  Department of Pharmacy, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark aff002;  Research Unit of Rheumatology, Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark aff003;  The Boden Institute of Obesity, Nutrition, Exercise & Eating Disorders, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia aff004;  Department of Public Health, Section for General Practice, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark aff005
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(10)
Kategorie: Research Article


Despite the nutritional value of meat, a large volume of reviews and meta-analyses suggests that processed meat intake is associated with an increased risk of chronic diseases. However, assessments of the quality of these published reviews internal validity are generally lacking. We systematically reviewed and assessed the quality alongside summarizing the results of previously published systematic reviews and meta-analyses that examined the association between processed meat intake and cancers, type II diabetes (T2D), and cardiovascular diseases (CVD). Reviews and meta-analyses published until May 2018 were identified through a systematic literature search in the databases MEDLINE and EMBASE, and reference lists of included reviews. The quality of the systematic reviews and meta-analyses was assessed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR). All eligible reviews had to comply with two quality requirements: providing sufficient information on quality assessment of the primary studies and a comprehensive search. The results were summarized for T2D, CVD, and each of the different cancer types. The certainty in the estimates of the individual outcomes was rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) method. In total, 22 systematic reviews were eligible and thus included in this review. More than 100 reviews were excluded because quality assessment of the primary studies had not been performed. The AMSTAR score of the included reviews ranged from 5 to 8 indicating moderate quality. Overall, the quality assessments of primary studies of the reviews are generally lacking; the scientific quality of the systematic reviews reporting positive associations between processed meat intake and risk of various cancers, T2D and CVD is moderate, and the results from case-control studies suggest more often a positive association than the results from cohort studies. The overall certainty in the evidence was very low across all individual outcomes, due to serious risk of bias and imprecision.

Klíčová slova:

Cardiovascular diseases – Case-control studies – Database searching – Meat – Research quality assessment – Systematic reviews – Test statistics


1. World Health Organization. Global health observatory: the data repository. 2016.

2. Arena R, Guazzi M, Lianov L, Whitsel L, Berra K, Lavie CJ, et al. Healthy Lifestyle Interventions to Combat Noncommunicable Disease-A Novel Nonhierarchical Connectivity Model for Key Stakeholders: A Policy Statement From the American Heart Association, European Society of Cardiology, European Association for Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation, and American College of Preventive Medicine. Mayo Clin Proc 2015 Aug;90(8):1082–103. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2015.05.001 26143646

3. Martinez-Gonzales MA, Martin-Calvo N. Mediterranean diet and life expectancy; beyond olive oil, fruits, and vegetables. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care 2016;19(6):401–7. doi: 10.1097/MCO.0000000000000316 27552476

4. Livanage T, Ninomiva T, Wang A, Neal B, Jun M, Wong MG, et al. Effects of the Mediterranean Diet on Cardiovascular Outcomes-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PLoS One 2016;11(8):e0159252. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0159252 27509006

5. Fardet A, Boirie Y. Associations between food and beverage groups and major diet-related chronic diseases: an exhaustive review of pooled/meta-analyses and systematic reviews. Nutr Rev 2014 Dec;72(12):741–62. doi: 10.1111/nure.12153 25406801

6. Schwingshackl L, Missbach B, Konig J, Hoffmann G. Adherence to a Mediterranean diet and risk of diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Public Health Nutr 2015 May;18(7):1292–9. doi: 10.1017/S1368980014001542 25145972

7. Schwingshackl L, Hoffmann G. Diet quality as assessed by the Healthy Eating Index, the Alternate Healthy Eating Index, the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension score, and health outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. J Acad Nutr Diet 2015 May;115(5):780–800. doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2014.12.009 25680825

8. Rodriguez-Monforte M, Flores-Mateo G, Sanchez E. Dietary patterns and CVD: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Br J Nutr 2015 Nov 14;114(9):1341–59. doi: 10.1017/S0007114515003177 26344504

9. World Health Organization. Diet, Nutrition and the Prevention of Chronic Diseases: Report of a Joint WHO/FAO Expert Consultation. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2003.

10. European Code Against cancer: IARC/WHO. 2017. 2017.

11. Nordisk M. Nordic Nutrition Recommendations 2012: integrating nutrition and physical activity. 5th edition ed. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers; 2014.

12. WRCF A. Colorectal Cancer 2011 Report: Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity, and the Prevention of Colorectal Cancer. 2011.

13. Wang X, Lin X, Ouyang YY, Liu J, Zhao G, Pan A, et al. Red and processed meat consumption and mortality: dose-response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Public Health Nutr 2016 Apr;19(5):893–905. doi: 10.1017/S1368980015002062 26143683

14. International Agency for Research on Cancer. IARC Monographs evaluate consumption of red meat and processed meat. 2015. 15-12-2016.

15. Micha R, Wallace SK, Mozaffarian D. Red and processed meat consumption and risk of incident coronary heart disease, stroke, and diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Circulation 2010 Jun 1;121(21):2271–83. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.924977 20479151

16. Mickan S, Tilson JK, Atherton H, Roberts NW, Heneghan C. Evidence of effectiveness of health care professionals using handheld computers: a scoping review of systematic reviews. J Med Internet Res 2013 Oct 28;15(10):e212. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2530 24165786

17. Bobrovitz N, Onakpoya I, Roberts N, Heneghan C, Mahtani KR. Protocol for an overview of systematic reviews of interventions to reduce unscheduled hospital admissions among adults. BMJ Open 2015 Aug 21;5(8):e008269. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008269 26297366

18. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst.Rev. 4[1], 1. 2015.

19. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2007 Feb 15;7:10. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-7-10 17302989

20. Wegewitz U, Weikert B, Fishta A, Jacobs A, Pieper D. Resuming the discussion of AMSTAR: What can (should) be made better? BMC Med Res Methodol 2016 Aug 26;16(1):111. doi: 10.1186/s12874-016-0183-6 27566440

21. Shea BJ, Hamel C, Wells GA, Bouter LM, Kristjansson E, Grimshaw J, et al. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2009 Oct;62(10):1013–20. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.10.009 19230606

22. Pieper D, Koensgen N, Breuing J, Ge L, Wegewitz U. How is AMSTAR applied by authors—a call for better reporting. BMC Med Res Methodol 2018 Jun 18;18(1):56. doi: 10.1186/s12874-018-0520-z 29914386

23. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Schunemann HJ, Tugwell P, Knottnerus A. GRADE guidelines: a new series of articles in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. J Clin Epidemiol 2011 Apr;64(4):380–2. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.09.011 21185693

24. Zhang S, Wang Q, He J. Intake of red and processed meat and risk of renal cell carcinoma: a meta-analysis of observational studies. Oncotarget 2017 Sep 29;8(44):77942–56. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.18549 29100437

25. Zhao Z, Feng Q, Yin Z, Shuang J, Bai B, Yu P, et al. Red and processed meat consumption and colorectal cancer risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Oncotarget 2017 Oct 10;8(47):83306–14. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.20667 29137344

26. Zhao Z, Yin Z, Zhao Q. Red and processed meat consumption and gastric cancer risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Oncotarget 2017 May 2;8(18):30563–75. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.15699 28430644

27. Zhao Z, Yin Z, Pu Z, Zhao Q. Association Between Consumption of Red and Processed Meat and Pancreatic Cancer Risk: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017 Apr;15(4):486–93. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2016.09.143 27693521

28. Choi Y, Song S, Song Y, Lee JE. Consumption of red and processed meat and esophageal cancer risk: meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol 2013 Feb 21;19(7):1020–9. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v19.i7.1020 23467465

29. Fang X, Wei J, He X, An P, Wang H, Jiang L, et al. Landscape of dietary factors associated with risk of gastric cancer: A systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Eur J Cancer 2015 Dec;51(18):2820–32. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2015.09.010 26589974

30. Li L, Ying XJ, Sun TT, Yi K, Tian HL, Sun R, et al. Overview of methodological quality of systematic reviews about gastric cancer risk and protective factors. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2012;13(5):2069–79. doi: 10.7314/apjcp.2012.13.5.2069 22901173

31. Li F, Duan F, Zhao X, Song C, Cui S, Dai L. Red Meat and Processed Meat Consumption and Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Risk: A Dose-response Meta-analysis of Observational Studies. Nutr Cancer 2016 Aug;68(6):1034–43. doi: 10.1080/01635581.2016.1192200 27367552

32. Luo J, Yang Y, Liu J, Lu K, Tang Z, Liu P, et al. Systematic review with meta-analysis: meat consumption and the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2014 May;39(9):913–22. doi: 10.1111/apt.12678 24588342

33. O'Sullivan TA, Hafekost K, Mitrou F, Lawrence D. Food sources of saturated fat and the association with mortality: a meta-analysis. Am J Public Health 2013 Sep;103(9):e31–e42. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2013.301492 23865702

34. Quach P, El SR, Gomes J, Krewksi D. A systematic review of the risk factors associated with the onset and progression of primary brain tumours. Neurotoxicology 2016 May 17.

35. Saneei P, Willett W, Esmaillzadeh A. Red and processed meat consumption and risk of glioma in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. J Res Med Sci 2015 Jun;20(6):602–12. doi: 10.4103/1735-1995.165970 26600837

36. Solimini AG, Lombardi AM, Palazzo C, De GM. Meat intake and non-Hodgkin lymphoma: a meta-analysis of observational studies. Cancer Causes Control 2016 May;27(5):595–606. doi: 10.1007/s10552-016-0745-2 27076059

37. Wallin A, Orsini N, Wolk A. Red and processed meat consumption and risk of ovarian cancer: a dose-response meta-analysis of prospective studies. Br J Cancer 2011 Mar 29;104(7):1196–201. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2011.49 21343939

38. Xu J, Yang XX, Wu YG, Li XY, Bai B. Meat consumption and risk of oral cavity and oropharynx cancer: a meta-analysis of observational studies. PLoS One 2014;9(4):e95048. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0095048 24736706

39. Yang WS, Wong MY, Vogtmann E, Tang RQ, Xie L, Yang YS, et al. Meat consumption and risk of lung cancer: evidence from observational studies. Ann Oncol 2012 Dec;23(12):3163–70. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mds207 22855553

40. Yang L, Dong J, Jiang S, Shi W, Xu X, Huang H, et al. Red and Processed Meat Consumption Increases Risk for Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma: A PRISMA-Compliant Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies. Medicine (Baltimore) 2015 Nov;94(45):e1729.

41. Zhu H, Yang X, Zhang C, Zhu C, Tao G, Zhao L, et al. Red and processed meat intake is associated with higher gastric cancer risk: a meta-analysis of epidemiological observational studies. PLoS One 2013;8(8):e70955. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0070955 23967140

42. Zhu HC, Yang X, Xu LP, Zhao LJ, Tao GZ, Zhang C, et al. Meat consumption is associated with esophageal cancer risk in a meat- and cancer-histological-type dependent manner. Dig Dis Sci 2014 Mar;59(3):664–73. doi: 10.1007/s10620-013-2928-y 24395380

43. Kim K, Hyeon J, Lee SA, Kwon SO, Lee H, Keum N, et al. Role of Total, Red, Processed, and White Meat Consumption in Stroke Incidence and Mortality: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies. J Am Heart Assoc 2017 Aug 30;6(9).

44. Huncharek M, Kupelnick B, Wheeler L. Dietary cured meat and the risk of adult glioma: a meta-analysis of nine observational studies. J Environ Pathol Toxicol Oncol 2003;22(2):129–37. 14533876

45. Yang C, Pan L, Sun C, Xi Y, Wang L, Li D. Red Meat Consumption and the Risk of Stroke: A Dose-Response Meta-analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 2016 May;25(5):1177–86. doi: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2016.01.040 26935118

46. Bramer WM, Giustini D, Kramer BM. Comparing the coverage, recall, and precision of searches for 120 systematic reviews in Embase, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar: a prospective study. Syst Rev 2016 Mar 1;5:39. doi: 10.1186/s13643-016-0215-7 26932789

47. Hartling L, Vandermeer B, Fernandes RM. Systematic reviews, overviews of reviews and comparative effectiveness reviews: a discussion of approaches to knowledge synthesis. Evid Based Child Health 2014 Jun;9(2):486–94. doi: 10.1002/ebch.1968 25404611

48. Faggion CM Jr. Critical appraisal of AMSTAR: challenges, limitations, and potential solutions from the perspective of an assessor. BMC Med Res Methodol 2015 Aug 13;15:63. doi: 10.1186/s12874-015-0062-6 26268372

49. Whiting P, Savovic J, Higgins JP, Caldwell DM, Reeves BC, Shea B, et al. ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed. J Clin Epidemiol 2016 Jan;69:225–34. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.06.005 26092286

50. Keller A, Bucher Della TS. Sugar-Sweetened Beverages and Obesity among Children and Adolescents: A Review of Systematic Literature Reviews. Child Obes 2015 Aug;11(4):338–46. doi: 10.1089/chi.2014.0117 26258560

51. Schwingshackl L, Hoffmann G, Missbach B, Stelmach-Mardas M, Boeing H. An Umbrella Review of Nuts Intake and Risk of Cardiovascular Disease. Curr Pharm Des 2017;23(7):1016–27. doi: 10.2174/1381612822666161010121356 27748190

52. Garcia-Larsen V, Del Giacco SR, Moreira A, Bonini M, Charles D, Reeves T, et al. Asthma and dietary intake: an overview of systematic reviews. Allergy 2016 Apr;71(4):433–42. doi: 10.1111/all.12800 26505989

53. Perry R, Leach V, Davies P, Penfold C, Ness A, Churchill R. An overview of systematic reviews of complementary and alternative therapies for fibromyalgia using both AMSTAR and ROBIS as quality assessment tools. Syst Rev 2017 May 15;6(1):97. doi: 10.1186/s13643-017-0487-6 28506257

54. Andersen RD, Langius-Eklof A, Nakstad B, Bernklev T, Jylli L. The measurement properties of pediatric observational pain scales: A systematic review of reviews. Int J Nurs Stud 2017 May 20;73:93–101. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.05.010 28558342

Článek vyšel v časopise


2019 Číslo 10
Nejčtenější tento týden