Abete · The British journal of nutrition 2014 · meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies · n=13 studies (1,674,272 participants)

Association between total, processed, red and white meat consumption and all-cause, CVD and IHD mortality: a meta-analysis of cohort studies.

Cited 448 times in the scientific literature.

Level 3 - non-randomized controlled study

Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies (observational data).

PubMed 24932617 · doi:10.1017/S000711451400124X · record verified 2026-08-30

What was done

Authors searched PubMed and ISI Web of Knowledge to identify prospective cohort studies evaluating associations between total, red, white, and processed meat consumption and all-cause, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and ischemic heart disease (IHD) mortality. Relative risk estimates comparing highest versus lowest intake categories and dose-response analyses were pooled using random-effects models, and between-study heterogeneity was evaluated.

What was found

Thirteen cohort studies including 1,674,272 individuals were analyzed. Highest versus lowest processed meat intake was associated with a 22% higher risk of all-cause mortality and an 18% higher risk of CVD mortality. Red meat intake was associated with a 16% higher risk of CVD mortality, with no significant association for total or white meat. In dose-response analyses, each 50 g/day increase in processed meat was positively associated with all-cause and CVD mortality, and each 100 g/day increase in red meat was positively associated with CVD mortality (exact numerical effect sizes not reported in the abstract). No meat type was significantly associated with IHD mortality.

Why it matters

This review differentiates between processed and unprocessed meat categories, showing that processed meat intake is more consistently linked to all-cause and cardiovascular mortality than unprocessed red meat or white meat.

Limits

All included studies were observational cohorts, carrying risk of residual confounding and dietary misclassification. Substantial heterogeneity was observed across most analyses, and specific confidence intervals and numerical risk estimates for dose-response analyses were not provided in the abstract.

Cited by