Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42070899›Full record

ReviewObesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity2026

Is Meat Industry Affiliation Associated With Study Conclusion in Nutrition Research? A Meta-Research Review.

Navid Teimouri, Katherine Sievert, Adam Hannah, Stephanie Meciar, Kerri Gill, Helen Jane Senior, Katherine Cullerton

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity, 2026. 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

7 authors.

Navid TeimouriSchool of Public Health, University of Queensland, Herston, QLD, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3340-3688
Katherine SievertGlobal Centre for Preventive Health and Nutrition, Institute for Health Transformation, School of Health and Social Development, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4617-8034
Adam HannahSchool of Political Science and International Studies, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, QLD, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5063-5755
Stephanie MeciarSchool of Public Health, University of Queensland, Herston, QLD, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-2589-9043
Kerri GillSchool of Public Health, University of Queensland, Herston, QLD, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7937-9695
Helen Jane SeniorSchool of Public Health, University of Queensland, Herston, QLD, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1460-7036
Katherine CullertonSchool of Public Health, University of Queensland, Herston, QLD, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9517-6380

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe meat industry's role in funding and influencing scientific research raises concerns about its impact on evidence used to inform public health policy. Although industry influence on other food and beverage sectors is well-documented, its effects on studies of meat consumption remain understudied.

objectiveThis study aimed to investigate the influence of meat industry involvement on study conclusions of research examining the health impacts of meat consumption.

methodsA meta-research review of relevant studies published between 2014 and 2023 was conducted using PubMed and Scopus. Studies investigating the nutritional health impacts of meat consumption were included. Study characteristics, author affiliations, declared funding sources, declared conflicts of interest, and study conclusions were extracted. Association tests were used to assess the relationship between industry ties and study conclusions.

resultsOf 500 included studies, 78 (15.6%) reported industry involvement. Studies with industry ties were 16 times more likely to report favorable conclusions regarding meat consumption (odds ratio [OR] = 16.4, 95% CI: 7.5-35.8), and there was a significant association (p < 0.001) between industry involvement and study conclusion.

conclusionMeat industry involvement significantly increases the likelihood of favorable study conclusions in nutrition research. These findings underscore the need for caution when interpreting research funded or associated with the meat industry and emphasize the importance of minimizing conflicts of interest in nutrition research.

trial registrationProspero: ID CRD42024526116.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchConflict of InterestFood IndustryMeatNutritional SciencesHumansconflicts of interesthealthmeatmeta research

Identifiers

PMID42070899
PMCPMC13655965

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.