Processed meat intake and chronic disease morbidity and mortality

An overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

Mina Nicole Händel, Isabel Cardoso, Katrine Marie Rasmussen, Jeanett Friis Rohde, Ramune Jacobsen, Sabrina Mai Nielsen, Robin Christensen, Berit Lilienthal Heitmann

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

26 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

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 casecontrol 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.

Original languageEnglish
Article numbere0223883
JournalPLOS ONE
Volume14
Issue number10
Number of pages20
ISSN1932-6203
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 17. Oct 2019

Fingerprint

meat consumption
Meats
systematic review
chronic diseases
Meat
morbidity
Meta-Analysis
cardiovascular diseases
Neoplasms
neoplasms
MEDLINE
Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus
Cohort Studies
Databases
cohort studies
noninsulin-dependent diabetes mellitus
processed meat
nutritive value
meat
Medical problems

Cite this

Händel, Mina Nicole ; Cardoso, Isabel ; Rasmussen, Katrine Marie ; Rohde, Jeanett Friis ; Jacobsen, Ramune ; Nielsen, Sabrina Mai ; Christensen, Robin ; Heitmann, Berit Lilienthal. / Processed meat intake and chronic disease morbidity and mortality : An overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. In: PLOS ONE. 2019 ; Vol. 14, No. 10.
@article{a71fe8b3b2f441cfa3cbe4ba0b2ef409,
title = "Processed meat intake and chronic disease morbidity and mortality: An overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses",
abstract = "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 casecontrol 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.",
author = "H{\"a}ndel, {Mina Nicole} and Isabel Cardoso and Rasmussen, {Katrine Marie} and Rohde, {Jeanett Friis} and Ramune Jacobsen and Nielsen, {Sabrina Mai} and Robin Christensen and Heitmann, {Berit Lilienthal}",
year = "2019",
month = "10",
day = "17",
doi = "10.1371/journal.pone.0223883",
language = "English",
volume = "14",
journal = "P L o S One",
issn = "1932-6203",
publisher = "Public Library of Science",
number = "10",

}

Processed meat intake and chronic disease morbidity and mortality : An overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. / Händel, Mina Nicole; Cardoso, Isabel; Rasmussen, Katrine Marie; Rohde, Jeanett Friis; Jacobsen, Ramune; Nielsen, Sabrina Mai; Christensen, Robin; Heitmann, Berit Lilienthal.

In: PLOS ONE, Vol. 14, No. 10, e0223883, 17.10.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Processed meat intake and chronic disease morbidity and mortality

T2 - An overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

AU - Händel, Mina Nicole

AU - Cardoso, Isabel

AU - Rasmussen, Katrine Marie

AU - Rohde, Jeanett Friis

AU - Jacobsen, Ramune

AU - Nielsen, Sabrina Mai

AU - Christensen, Robin

AU - Heitmann, Berit Lilienthal

PY - 2019/10/17

Y1 - 2019/10/17

N2 - 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 casecontrol 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.

AB - 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 casecontrol 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.

U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0223883

DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0223883

M3 - Journal article

VL - 14

JO - P L o S One

JF - P L o S One

SN - 1932-6203

IS - 10

M1 - e0223883

ER -