红肉消费对心血管危险因素的影响：随机对照试验的系统评价和贝叶斯网络荟萃分析。

IF 7.4 2区医学 Q1 NUTRITION & DIETETICS

Clinical nutrition Pub Date : 2025-09-08 DOI:10.1016/j.clnu.2025.09.001

Miguel López-Moreno , José Francisco López-Gil , Alfredo Bravo-Sánchez , Gabriele Bertotti , Alberto Roldán-Ruiz

{"title":"红肉消费对心血管危险因素的影响：随机对照试验的系统评价和贝叶斯网络荟萃分析。","authors":"Miguel López-Moreno , José Francisco López-Gil , Alfredo Bravo-Sánchez , Gabriele Bertotti , Alberto Roldán-Ruiz","doi":"10.1016/j.clnu.2025.09.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background & aims</h3><div>The role of red meat in cardiovascular risk remains controversial. The aim of this systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was to investigate the effects of red meat consumption on cardiovascular risk factors concerning different comparison foods.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A systematic search of RCTs was conducted from the inception to April 2024. Studies compared diets containing red meat to those replacing red meat with various foods. Comparison diets were classified into high-quality plant protein sources, animal protein, mixed animal and plant protein and carbohydrates. The effects of the dietary interventions on cardiovascular parameters were evaluated using a random-effects NMA, with an analysis of interactions between the intervention and control groups. The outcomes were the mean changes in blood lipids, blood pressure, and C-reactive protein (CRP) in the red meat group compared to the comparator group.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Thirty-six RCTs were included in the analysis. Consuming plant proteins resulted in a greater reduction in total cholesterol (TC) levels (mean difference (MD) = −0.14; 95 % credible interval (CrI): −0.28 to −0.001, <em>p</em> < 0.05) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels (MD = −0.19; 95 % CrI: −0.36 to −0.03, <em>p</em> < 0.05) compared to red meat interventions. In contrast, interventions combining animal and plant proteins increased TG levels more than red meat interventions (MD = 0.21; 95 % CrI: 0.06 to 0.34, <em>p</em> < 0.05). The certainty of the evidence for all outcomes ranged from very low to low.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The findings of this NMA indicate that the effect of red meat on cardiovascular risk factors depends on the comparison food. Replacing red meat with plant protein sources was associated with favorable changes in TC levels and LDL-C.</div></div><div><h3>Registry and registry number for systematic reviews or meta-analyses</h3><div>CRD42024537865 <span><span>https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42024537865</span><svg><path></path></svg></span>.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":10517,"journal":{"name":"Clinical nutrition","volume":"54 ","pages":"Pages 12-26"},"PeriodicalIF":7.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effect of red meat consumption on cardiovascular risk factors: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials\",\"authors\":\"Miguel López-Moreno , José Francisco López-Gil , Alfredo Bravo-Sánchez , Gabriele Bertotti , Alberto Roldán-Ruiz\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.clnu.2025.09.001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background & aims</h3><div>The role of red meat in cardiovascular risk remains controversial. The aim of this systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was to investigate the effects of red meat consumption on cardiovascular risk factors concerning different comparison foods.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A systematic search of RCTs was conducted from the inception to April 2024. Studies compared diets containing red meat to those replacing red meat with various foods. Comparison diets were classified into high-quality plant protein sources, animal protein, mixed animal and plant protein and carbohydrates. The effects of the dietary interventions on cardiovascular parameters were evaluated using a random-effects NMA, with an analysis of interactions between the intervention and control groups. The outcomes were the mean changes in blood lipids, blood pressure, and C-reactive protein (CRP) in the red meat group compared to the comparator group.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Thirty-six RCTs were included in the analysis. Consuming plant proteins resulted in a greater reduction in total cholesterol (TC) levels (mean difference (MD) = −0.14; 95 % credible interval (CrI): −0.28 to −0.001, <em>p</em> < 0.05) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels (MD = −0.19; 95 % CrI: −0.36 to −0.03, <em>p</em> < 0.05) compared to red meat interventions. In contrast, interventions combining animal and plant proteins increased TG levels more than red meat interventions (MD = 0.21; 95 % CrI: 0.06 to 0.34, <em>p</em> < 0.05). The certainty of the evidence for all outcomes ranged from very low to low.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The findings of this NMA indicate that the effect of red meat on cardiovascular risk factors depends on the comparison food. Replacing red meat with plant protein sources was associated with favorable changes in TC levels and LDL-C.</div></div><div><h3>Registry and registry number for systematic reviews or meta-analyses</h3><div>CRD42024537865 <span><span>https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42024537865</span><svg><path></path></svg></span>.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10517,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical nutrition\",\"volume\":\"54 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 12-26\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical nutrition\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261561425002493\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"NUTRITION & DIETETICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical nutrition","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261561425002493","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

背景与目的：红肉在心血管风险中的作用仍然存在争议。本系统综述和贝叶斯网络荟萃分析（NMA）随机对照试验（rct）的目的是研究红肉消费对不同比较食物的心血管危险因素的影响。方法：系统检索自研究开始至2024年4月的随机对照试验。研究比较了含有红肉的饮食和用各种食物代替红肉的饮食。对照日粮分为优质植物蛋白源、动物蛋白源、动植物混合蛋白源和碳水化合物源。采用随机效应NMA评估饮食干预对心血管参数的影响，并分析干预组与对照组之间的相互作用。结果是与比较组相比，红肉组的血脂、血压和c反应蛋白（CRP）的平均变化。结果：36项随机对照试验纳入分析。食用植物蛋白导致总胆固醇（TC）水平的更大降低(平均差值(MD) = -0.14；95%可信区间（CrI）： -0.28至-0.001,p < 0.05)和低密度脂蛋白胆固醇（LDL-C）水平（MD = -0.19; 95% CrI: -0.36至-0.03,p < 0.05）与红肉干预相比。相比之下，结合动物和植物蛋白的干预比红肉干预更能提高TG水平（MD = 0.21; 95% CrI: 0.06至0.34,p < 0.05）。所有结果的证据的确定性从非常低到低不等。结论：本研究结果表明，红肉对心血管危险因素的影响取决于比较食物。用植物蛋白来源替代红肉与TC水平和LDL-C的有利变化相关。登记和登记号码为系统评价或荟萃分析：CRD42024537865 https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42024537865。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

Effect of red meat consumption on cardiovascular risk factors: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

查看原文本刊更多论文

Effect of red meat consumption on cardiovascular risk factors: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background & aims

The role of red meat in cardiovascular risk remains controversial. The aim of this systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was to investigate the effects of red meat consumption on cardiovascular risk factors concerning different comparison foods.

Methods

A systematic search of RCTs was conducted from the inception to April 2024. Studies compared diets containing red meat to those replacing red meat with various foods. Comparison diets were classified into high-quality plant protein sources, animal protein, mixed animal and plant protein and carbohydrates. The effects of the dietary interventions on cardiovascular parameters were evaluated using a random-effects NMA, with an analysis of interactions between the intervention and control groups. The outcomes were the mean changes in blood lipids, blood pressure, and C-reactive protein (CRP) in the red meat group compared to the comparator group.

Results

Thirty-six RCTs were included in the analysis. Consuming plant proteins resulted in a greater reduction in total cholesterol (TC) levels (mean difference (MD) = −0.14; 95 % credible interval (CrI): −0.28 to −0.001, p < 0.05) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels (MD = −0.19; 95 % CrI: −0.36 to −0.03, p < 0.05) compared to red meat interventions. In contrast, interventions combining animal and plant proteins increased TG levels more than red meat interventions (MD = 0.21; 95 % CrI: 0.06 to 0.34, p < 0.05). The certainty of the evidence for all outcomes ranged from very low to low.

Conclusion

The findings of this NMA indicate that the effect of red meat on cardiovascular risk factors depends on the comparison food. Replacing red meat with plant protein sources was associated with favorable changes in TC levels and LDL-C.

Registry and registry number for systematic reviews or meta-analyses

CRD42024537865 https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42024537865.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Clinical nutrition 医学-营养学

CiteScore

14.10

自引率

6.30%

发文量

356

审稿时长

28 days

期刊介绍： Clinical Nutrition, the official journal of ESPEN, The European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism, is an international journal providing essential scientific information on nutritional and metabolic care and the relationship between nutrition and disease both in the setting of basic science and clinical practice. Published bi-monthly, each issue combines original articles and reviews providing an invaluable reference for any specialist concerned with these fields.