D Aune1, G Ursin, M B Veierød. 1. Department of Biostatistics, Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, University of Oslo, PO Box 1122, 0317 Oslo, Norway. dagfinn.aune@medisin.uio.no
Abstract
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Diet is thought to play an important role in the aetiology of type 2 diabetes. Previous studies have found positive associations between meat consumption and the risk of type 2 diabetes, but the results have been inconsistent. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies of meat consumption and type 2 diabetes risk. METHODS: We searched several databases for cohort studies on meat consumption and type 2 diabetes risk, up to December 2008. Summary relative risks were estimated by use of a random-effects model. RESULTS: We identified 12 cohort studies. The estimated summary RR and 95% confidence interval of type 2 diabetes comparing high vs low intake was 1.17 (95% CI 0.92-1.48) for total meat, 1.21 (95% CI 1.07-1.38) for red meat and 1.41 (95% CI 1.25-1.60) for processed meat. There was heterogeneity amongst the studies of total, red and processed meat which, to some degree, was explained by the study characteristics. CONCLUSIONS/ INTERPRETATION: These results suggest that meat consumption increases the risk of type 2 diabetes. However, the possibility that residual confounding could explain this association cannot be excluded.
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Diet is thought to play an important role in the aetiology of type 2 diabetes. Previous studies have found positive associations between meat consumption and the risk of type 2 diabetes, but the results have been inconsistent. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies of meat consumption and type 2 diabetes risk. METHODS: We searched several databases for cohort studies on meat consumption and type 2 diabetes risk, up to December 2008. Summary relative risks were estimated by use of a random-effects model. RESULTS: We identified 12 cohort studies. The estimated summary RR and 95% confidence interval of type 2 diabetes comparing high vs low intake was 1.17 (95% CI 0.92-1.48) for total meat, 1.21 (95% CI 1.07-1.38) for red meat and 1.41 (95% CI 1.25-1.60) for processed meat. There was heterogeneity amongst the studies of total, red and processed meat which, to some degree, was explained by the study characteristics. CONCLUSIONS/ INTERPRETATION: These results suggest that meat consumption increases the risk of type 2 diabetes. However, the possibility that residual confounding could explain this association cannot be excluded.
Authors: Sandra B Sipetić; Hristina D Vlajinac; Nikola I Kocev; Jelena M Marinković; Slobodan Z Radmanović; Milan D Bjekić Journal: Eur J Public Health Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 3.367
Authors: E J Feskens; S M Virtanen; L Räsänen; J Tuomilehto; J Stengård; J Pekkanen; A Nissinen; D Kromhout Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 1995-08 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: An Pan; Qi Sun; Adam M Bernstein; Matthias B Schulze; JoAnn E Manson; Walter C Willett; Frank B Hu Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2011-08-10 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: J Meinila; A Valkama; S B Koivusalo; K Rönö; H Kautiainen; J Lindström; B Stach-Lempinen; J G Eriksson; M Erkkola Journal: Eur J Clin Nutr Date: 2017-02-01 Impact factor: 4.016
Authors: Astrid Steinbrecher; Yukiko Morimoto; Sreang Heak; Nicholas J Ollberding; Karly S Geller; Andrew Grandinetti; Laurence N Kolonel; Gertraud Maskarinec Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2011-04-16 Impact factor: 3.797