4.7 Article

Meat Consumption and Risk of Metabolic Syndrome: Results from the Korean Population and a Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies

期刊

NUTRIENTS
卷 10, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu10040390

关键词

metabolic syndrome; processed meat; white meat; meta-analysis; red meat

资金

  1. Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea - Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning [NRF-2015R1A1A1A05 001362]
  2. National Research Foundation of Korea [2015R1A1A1A05001362] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Many studies have reported harmful effects of red meat or processed meat on chronic diseases including cancer and diabetes, but epidemiological evidence for metabolic syndrome is limited and remains controversial. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis of observational studies to assess the association between various meat consumption and risk of metabolic syndrome. The PubMed and ISI Web of Science databases were searched through June 2017, and further included unpublished results from Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2012-2015, including 8387 Korean adults. Sixteen studies were suitable for meta-analysis, which included 19,579 cases among 76,111 participants. We used a random-effects model to calculate the pooled relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). The pooled RR for metabolic syndrome of the highest versus lowest category of meat intake was 1.14 (95% CI: 1.05, 1.23) for total meat, 1.33 (95% CI: 1.01, 1.74) for red meat, 1.35 (95% CI: 1.18, 1.54) for processed meat, and 0.86 (95% CI: 0.76, 0.97) for white meat. All of these associations did not differ significantly by study design and adjustment factors. Our findings indicated that total, red, and processed meat intake is positively associated with metabolic syndrome, and white meat intake is inversely associated with metabolic syndrome.

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