4.7 Article

Red Meat Consumption and Risk of Stroke A Meta-Analysis of Prospective Studies

期刊

STROKE
卷 43, 期 10, 页码 2556-+

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.112.663286

关键词

meat; meta-analysis; prospective studies; stroke

资金

  1. Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research (FAS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Purpose-Prospective studies of red meat consumption and risk of stroke have provided inconsistent results. We performed a meta-analysis to summarize the evidence regarding the effects of red meat (fresh, processed, and total) consumption on stroke risk. Methods-Studies were identified by searching the PubMed database through May 26, 2012, and by reviewing the reference lists of retrieved articles. Prospective studies that reported relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the association between red meat consumption and risk of stroke were eligible. Results were combined using a random-effects model. Results-Five articles including results from 6 prospective studies with 10 630 cases of stroke and 329 495 participants were included in the meta-analysis. For each serving per day increase in fresh red meat, processed meat, and total red meat consumption, the RR (95% CI) of total stroke were 1.11 (1.03-1.20), 1.13 (1.03-1.24), and 1.11 (1.06-1.16), respectively, without heterogeneity among studies (P>0.16). Among 4 articles with results for stroke subtypes, the risk of ischemic stroke was positively associated with consumption of fresh red meat (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.00-1.27), processed meat (RR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.06-1.24), and total red meat (RR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.05-1.19); no statistically significant associations were observed for hemorrhagic stroke. Conclusion-Results from this meta-analysis indicate that consumption of fresh red meat and processed red meat as well as total red meat is associated with increased risk of total stroke and ischemic stroke, but not hemorrhagic stroke. (Stroke. 2012; 43: 2556-2560.)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据