Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19662376›Full record

SynthesisDiabetologia2009

Meat consumption and the risk of type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies.

D Aune, G Ursin, M B Veierød

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Diabetologia, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 152 papers, 16 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
152citing papers in PubMed, 16 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

152 citing papers in PubMed, 16 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

92 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

D AuneDepartment of Biostatistics, Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, University of Oslo, PO Box 1122, 0317 Oslo, Norway. dagfinn.aune@medisin.uio.no
G Ursin
M B Veierød

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aims/hypothesisDiet is thought to play an important role in the aetiology of type 2 diabetes. Previous studies have found positive associations between meat consumption and the risk of type 2 diabetes, but the results have been inconsistent. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies of meat consumption and type 2 diabetes risk.

methodsWe searched several databases for cohort studies on meat consumption and type 2 diabetes risk, up to December 2008. Summary relative risks were estimated by use of a random-effects model.

resultsWe identified 12 cohort studies. The estimated summary RR and 95% confidence interval of type 2 diabetes comparing high vs low intake was 1.17 (95% CI 0.92-1.48) for total meat, 1.21 (95% CI 1.07-1.38) for red meat and 1.41 (95% CI 1.25-1.60) for processed meat. There was heterogeneity amongst the studies of total, red and processed meat which, to some degree, was explained by the study characteristics. CONCLUSIONS/

interpretationThese results suggest that meat consumption increases the risk of type 2 diabetes. However, the possibility that residual confounding could explain this association cannot be excluded.

Indexed as

AdultAgedCohort StudiesDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2DietEnergy IntakeHumansMeatMeta-Analysis as TopicMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsRisk FactorsSample Size

Identifiers

PMID19662376

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.