Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32761179›Full record

SynthesisAdvances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.)2021

Systematic Review of Beef Protein Effects on Gut Microbiota: Implications for Health.

Kembra Albracht-Schulte, Tariful Islam, Paige Johnson, Naima Moustaid-Moussa

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Impact of Diet on Colorectal Cancer Progression and Prevention: From Nutrients to Neoplasms.The Korean journal of gastroenterology = Taehan Sohwagi Hakhoe chi · 2023
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Methods for improving meat protein digestibility in older adults.Journal of animal science and technology · 2023
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kembra Albracht-SchulteDepartment of Nutritional Sciences and Obesity Research Institute, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA.
Tariful IslamDepartment of Nutritional Sciences and Obesity Research Institute, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA.
Paige JohnsonDepartment of Nutritional Sciences and Obesity Research Institute, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA.
Naima Moustaid-MoussaDepartment of Nutritional Sciences and Obesity Research Institute, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA.
Texas Tech University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The influence of diet on the gut microbiota is an emerging research area with significant impact on human health and disease. However, the effects of beef, the most consumed red meat in the United States, on gut microbial profile are not well studied. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols, the objective of this systematic review was to conduct a rigorous and thorough review of the current scientific literature regarding the effects of beef protein and the resulting bioactivity of beef protein and amino acids on the gut microbiota, with the goal of identifying gaps in the literature and guiding future research priorities. Utilizing MEDLINE Complete, PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases, we conducted searches including terms and combinations of the following: animal protein, amino acid, beef, bioactive compounds, diet, health, microbiome, peptide, processed beef, and protein. We identified 131 articles, from which 15 were included in our review. The effects of beef on mouse and rat models were mostly consistent for the bacterial phylum level. Short-term (1-4-wk) beef intakes had little to no effect on microbial profiles in humans. Most studies utilized high beef feeding (240-380 g/d), and no study examined recommended amounts of protein [∼3.71 oz/d (105 g/d) meats, poultry, and eggs, or ∼26 oz/week (737 g/wk) from these food sources] according to US dietary guidelines. Additionally, the majority of animal and human studies with adverse findings examined the impact of beef in the context of a diet high in fat or sugar. In conclusion, an extensive gap exists in the literature regarding beef and the microbiota. More studies are necessary to elucidate the role of the microbiota following the consumption of beef, especially in interaction with other dietary compounds, and how beef preparation, processing, and cooking methods differentially influence the biological effects of beef on human health.

Indexed as

Gastrointestinal MicrobiomeAnimalsCattleDietEggsHumansMeatMicePrevotellaRatsbeefbeef proteinhealthmicrobiotaprocessed meatproteinred meat

Identifiers

PMID32761179
PMCPMC7850003
OpenAlexW3048135707

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.