Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33268459›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2020

Red meat intake and risk of coronary heart disease among US men: prospective cohort study.

Laila Al-Shaar, Ambika Satija, Dong D Wang, Eric B Rimm, Stephanie A Smith-Warner, Meir J Stampfer, Frank B Hu, Walter C Willett

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 89 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
89citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
22.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

89 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 192 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Physicochemical Properties of Safflower (Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  20. Review

29 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Laila Al-ShaarDepartment of Nutrition, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, 655 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
Ambika SatijaDepartment of Nutrition, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, 655 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
Dong D WangDepartment of Nutrition, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, 655 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
Eric B RimmDepartment of Nutrition, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, 655 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
Stephanie A Smith-WarnerDepartment of Nutrition, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, 655 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
Meir J StampferDepartment of Nutrition, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, 655 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
Frank B HuDepartment of Nutrition, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, 655 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
Walter C WillettDepartment of Nutrition, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, 655 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02115, USA wwillett@hsph.harvard.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-1458-7597
Brigham and Women's Hospital · USHarvard University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo study total, processed, and unprocessed red meat in relation to risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) and to estimate the effects of substituting other protein sources for red meat with CHD risk.

designProspective cohort study with repeated measures of diet and lifestyle factors.

settingHealth Professionals Follow-Up Study cohort, United States, 1986-2016.

participants43 272 men without cardiovascular disease or cancer at baseline.

main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was total CHD, comprised of acute non-fatal myocardial infarction or fatal CHD. Cox models were used to estimate hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals across categories of red meat consumption. Substitution analyses were conducted by comparing coefficients for red meat and the alternative food in models, including red meat and alternative foods as continuous variables.

resultsDuring 1 023 872 person years of follow-up, 4456 incident CHD events were documented of which 1860 were fatal. After multivariate adjustment for dietary and non-dietary risk factors, total, unprocessed, and processed red meat intake were each associated with a modestly higher risk of CHD (hazard ratio for one serving per day increment: 1.12 (95% confidence interval 1.06 to 1.18) for total red meat, 1.11 (1.02 to 1.21) for unprocessed red meat, and 1.15 (1.06 to 1.25) for processed red meat). Compared with red meat, the intake of one serving per day of combined plant protein sources (nuts, legumes, and soy) was associated with a lower risk of CHD (0.86 (0.80 to 0.93) compared with total red meat, 0.87 (0.79 to 0.95) compared with unprocessed red meat, and 0.83 (0.76 to 0.91) compared with processed red meat). Substitutions of whole grains and dairy products for total red meat and eggs for processed red meat were also associated with lower CHD risk.

conclusionsSubstituting high quality plant foods such as legumes, nuts, or soy for red meat might reduce the risk of CHD. Substituting whole grains and dairy products for total red meat, and eggs for processed red meat, might also reduce this risk.

Indexed as

Food HandlingAdultAgedCohort StudiesCoronary DiseaseDairy ProductsDietDietary ProteinsEggsHealth PersonnelHumansMaleMiddle AgedMultivariate AnalysisMyocardial InfarctionProportional Hazards ModelsDietary Proteins

Identifiers

PMID33268459
PMCPMC8030119
OpenAlexW3107159782

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.