Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40599416›Full record

ArticleHealth science reports2025

Exploring the Comparative Impact of Red and White Meat on Cardiovascular Diseases: A Global Cross-Sectional Ecological Study.

Wenpeng You, Shuhuan Feng, Frank Donnelly

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health science reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Wenpeng YouHeart and Lung, Royal Adelaide Hospital Adelaide Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6229-1064
Shuhuan FengChina Organic Food Certification Center Beijing China.
Frank DonnellySchool of Nursing Murdoch University Murdoch Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7675-9505

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The impact of white meat on cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) is rarely reported, while red meat has been extensively associated with CVDs. This phenomenon is worth exploring, considering that there is no substantial difference in composition between red meat and white meat. Methods: Country-specific data were extracted from United Nations agencies to analyse and compare the statistical roles of red meat and white meat in contributing to CVD incidence. Ageing, socioeconomic status, obesity, and urbanization were included as confounders in four data analysis models: bivariate correlations (Pearson's Results: Globally, both red meat and white meat showed significant correlations with CVD incidence in bivariate analyses. However, when adjusting for confounders and the effect of red meat, red meat consistently maintained a significant association with CVD incidence, whereas the correlation for white meat became weak or negligible. These findings suggest that the apparent association between white meat consumption and CVD may be largely due to confounding by red meat intake. Conclusions: Our analyses imply that red meat consumption exhibits a significantly stronger correlation with CVD incidence than white meat consumption. Although both meat types show significant associations in bivariate analyses, the association for white meat becomes negligible after adjusting for red meat intake and other confounding factors. This suggests that the adverse effects observed in studies that consider white meat consumption may be largely attributable to concurrent red meat consumption, rather than reflecting an independent risk from white meat.

Indexed as

cardiovascular diseasered meatsaturated fatwhite meat

Identifiers

PMID40599416
PMCPMC12208897

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.