ArticleThe Journal of nutrition2022
A Standardized Assessment of Processed Red Meat and Processed Poultry Intake in the US Population Aged ≥2 Years Using NHANES.
Article in The Journal of nutrition, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Meat Consumption and Gut Microbiota: a Scoping Review of Literature and Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials in Adults.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2023Pooled it
- Processing Status, Rather Than Meat Source, Is Associated with Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease Among US Adults.The Turkish journal of gastroenterology : the official journal of Turkish Society of Gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Association of dietary index for gut microbiota and sarcopenia: the mediation effect of body roundness index.Innovation in aging · 2025Article
- Dietary index for gut microbiota, metabolic syndrome, and long-term mortality: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2007-2018.Diabetology & metabolic syndrome · 2025Article
- Linear association of the dietary index for gut microbiota with insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes mellitus in U.S. adults: the mediating role of body mass index and inflammatory markers.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Article
- Beef Consumption and Cardiovascular Disease Risk Factors: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Current developments in nutrition · 2024Article
- Disaggregation of Dairy in Composite Foods in the United Kingdom.Current developments in nutrition · 2024Article
- Non-Linear Association of Exercise with Animal Protein Consumption among U.S. Adults.Nutrients · 2024Article
- The impact of ultra-processed foods and unprocessed or minimally processed foods on the quality of life among adolescents: a longitudinal study from China.Frontiers in nutrition · 2024Article
- Consumption Patterns and the Nutritional Contribution of Total, Processed, Fresh, and Fresh-Lean Pork to the U.S. Diet.Nutrients · 2023Article
- Trends in Beef Intake in the United States: Analysis of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2001-2018.Nutrients · 2023Article
- Healthy U.S.-style dietary patterns can be modified to provide increased energy from protein.Nutrition journal · 2022Article
- Heterogeneity in Meat Food Groups Can Meaningfully Alter Population-Level Intake Estimates of Red Meat and Poultry.Frontiers in nutrition · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStandardized methods are needed to investigate intake patterns of processed meat subtypes, considering health concerns surrounding processed meat intake.
objectivesThe objectives of this study were to create a standardized method of disaggregating processed meat into processed red meat and processed poultry and describe intake patterns of the US population aged ≥2 y.
methodsTwo researchers independently manually disaggregated processed meat from the Food Patterns Equivalents Database into processed red meat and processed poultry based on available information from the Foods and Nutrient Database for Dietary Studies. We created an SAS program (called Processed Meat Categories) to mimic the manual coding. We used the program to describe intake patterns and trends over time of processed red meat and processed poultry using 24-h recalls from 2007-2008 through 2017-2018 NHANES data with SAS survey-weighted procedures for complex surveys.
resultsThe SAS program had high agreement with the manual code (Pearson concordance correlation ≥0.95). Of the US population aged ≥2 y, 46.8% (95% CI: 45.3, 48.2%) reported consuming any processed meat, 42.5% (95% CI: 41.0, 43.9%) reported consuming processed red meat, and 11.3% (95% CI: 10.2, 12.4%) reported consuming processed poultry. Most [74.1 ± 0.13% (SEM)] processed meat reported was red meat compared with poultry, and 32.1 ± 0.01% of total red meat and 13.7 ± 0.01% of total poultry reported were processed. Prevalence of processed poultry intake increased from 9.5% (95% CI: 8.9, 10.1%) in 2007-2010 to 11.3% (95% CI: 10.2, 12.4%) in 2015-2018 (P < 0.0001), but mean intake amount did not change. Prevalence of processed red meat intake did not change over time, but mean intake decreased from 0.8 ± 0.03 ounce-equivalents in 2007-2010 to 0.7 ± 0.02 ounce-equivalents (P = 0.0058) in 2015-2018.
conclusionsThe Processed Meat Categories SAS program is a tool available for researchers to standardize estimates of processed meat subtypes for future dietary patterns research. Intake of total processed meat did not change in the United States, but intake amount of processed red meat decreased and the prevalence of processed poultry consumers increased.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.