Search

Background: Dietary guidelines generally recommend limiting intake of red and processed meat. However, the quality of evidence implicating red and processed meat in adverse health outcomes remains unclear. Purpose: To evaluate the association between red and processed meat consumption and all-cause mortality, cardiometabolic outcomes, quality of life, and satisfaction with diet among adults. Data Sources: EMBASE (Elsevier), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Wiley), Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics), CINAHL (EBSCO), and ProQuest from inception until July 2018 and MEDLINE from inception until April 2019, without language restrictions, as well as bibliographies of relevant articles. Study Selection: Cohort studies with at least 1000 participants that reported an association between unprocessed red or processed meat intake and outcomes of interest. Data Extraction: Teams of 2 reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. One investigator assessed certainty of evidence, and the senior investigator confirmed the assessments. Data Synthesis: Of 61 articles reporting on 55 cohorts with more than 4 million participants, none addressed quality of life or satisfaction with diet. Low-certainty evidence was found that a reduction in unprocessed red meat intake of 3 servings per week is associated with a very small reduction in risk for cardiovascular mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and type 2 diabetes. Likewise, low-certainty evidence was found that a reduction in processed meat intake of 3 servings per week is associated with a very small decrease in risk for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, stroke, MI, and type 2 diabetes. Limitation: Inadequate adjustment for known confounders, residual confounding due to observational design, and recall bias associated with dietary measurement. Conclusion: The magnitude of association between red and processed meat consumption and all-cause mortality and adverse cardiometabolic outcomes is very small, and the evidence is of low certainty. Primary Funding Source: None. (PROSPERO: CRD42017074074)

Background: Cancer incidence has continuously increased over the past few centuries and represents a major health burden worldwide. Purpose: To evaluate the possible causal relationship between intake of red and processed meat and cancer mortality and incidence. Data Sources: Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, CINAHL, and ProQuest from inception until July 2018 and MEDLINE from inception until April 2019 without language restrictions. Study Selection: Cohort studies that included more than 1000 adults and reported the association between consumption of unprocessed red and processed meat and cancer mortality and incidence. Data Extraction: Teams of 2 reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias; 1 reviewer evaluated the certainty of evidence, which was confirmed or revised by the senior reviewer. Data Synthesis: Of 118 articles (56 cohorts) with more than 6 million participants, 73 articles were eligible for the dose-response meta-analyses, 30 addressed cancer mortality, and 80 reported cancer incidence. Low-certainty evidence suggested that an intake reduction of 3 servings of unprocessed meat per week was associated with a very small reduction in overall cancer mortality over a lifetime. Evidence of low to very low certainty suggested that each intake reduction of 3 servings of processed meat per week was associated with very small decreases in overall cancer mortality over a lifetime; prostate cancer mortality; and incidence of esophageal, colorectal, and breast cancer. Limitation: Limited causal inferences due to residual confounding in observational studies, risk of bias due to limitations in diet assessment and adjustment for confounders, recall bias in dietary assessment, and insufficient data for planned subgroup analyses. Conclusion: The possible absolute effects of red and processed meat consumption on cancer mortality and incidence are very small, and the certainty of evidence is low to very low. Primary Funding Source: None. (PROSPERO: CRD42017074074)

Background: Studying dietary patterns may provide insights into the potential effects of red and processed meat on health outcomes. Purpose: To evaluate the effect of dietary patterns, including different amounts of red or processed meat, on all-cause mortality, cardiometabolic outcomes, and cancer incidence and mortality. Data Sources: Systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, Web of Science, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global from inception to April 2019 with no restrictions on year or language. Study Selection: Teams of 2 reviewers independently screened search results and included prospective cohort studies with 1000 or more participants that reported on the association between dietary patterns and health outcomes. Data Extraction: Two reviewers independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and evaluated the certainty of evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria. Data Synthesis: Eligible studies that followed patients for 2 to 34 years revealed low- to very-low-certainty evidence that dietary patterns lower in red and processed meat intake result in very small or possibly small decreases in all-cause mortality, cancer mortality and incidence, cardiovascular mortality, nonfatal coronary heart disease, fatal and nonfatal myocardial infarction, and type 2 diabetes. For all-cause, cancer, and cardiovascular mortality and incidence of some types of cancer, the total sample included more than 400 000 patients; for other outcomes, total samples included 4000 to more than 300 000 patients. Limitation: Observational studies are prone to residual confounding, and these studies provide low- or very-low-certainty evidence according to the GRADE criteria. Conclusion: Low- or very-low-certainty evidence suggests that dietary patterns with less red and processed meat intake may result in very small reductions in adverse cardiometabolic and cancer outcomes. Primary Funding Source: None. (PROSPERO: CRD42017074074)

Background: Few randomized trials have evaluated the effect of reducing red meat intake on clinically important outcomes. Purpose: To summarize the effect of lower versus higher red meat intake on the incidence of cardiometabolic and cancer outcomes in adults. Data Sources: EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Web of Science, and ProQuest from inception to July 2018 and MEDLINE from inception to April 2019, without language restrictions. Study Selection: Randomized trials (published in any language) comparing diets lower in red meat with diets higher in red meat that differed by a gradient of at least 1 serving per week for 6 months or more. Data Extraction: Teams of 2 reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence. Data Synthesis: Of 12 eligible trials, a single trial enrolling 48 835 women provided the most credible, though still low-certainty, evidence that diets lower in red meat may have little or no effect on all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.99 [95% CI, 0.95 to 1.03]), cardiovascular mortality (HR, 0.98 [CI, 0.91 to 1.06]), and cardiovascular disease (HR, 0.99 [CI, 0.94 to 1.05]). That trial also provided low- to very-low-certainty evidence that diets lower in red meat may have little or no effect on total cancer mortality (HR, 0.95 [CI, 0.89 to 1.01]) and the incidence of cancer, including colorectal cancer (HR, 1.04 [CI, 0.90 to 1.20]) and breast cancer (HR, 0.97 [0.90 to 1.04]). Limitations: There were few trials, most addressing only surrogate outcomes, with heterogeneous comparators and small gradients in red meat consumption between lower versus higher intake groups. Conclusion: Low- to very-low-certainty evidence suggests that diets restricted in red meat may have little or no effect on major cardiometabolic outcomes and cancer mortality and incidence. Primary Funding Source: None (PROSPERO: CRD42017074074).

Background: Recent systematic reviews and editorials suggest that many organizations that produce nutritional guideline recommendations do not adhere to internationally recognized standards set forth by the Institute of Medicine (IoM), Guidelines International Network (GIN), Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE), and Grading Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Methods: The potential solution is an independent group with content expertise and skilled in the methodology of systematic reviews and practice guidelines to produce trustworthy guideline recommendations, recommendations that are supported by publication in a top tier journal. The BMJ Rapid Recommendations project has recently demonstrated the feasibility and utility of this approach. Here, we are proposing trustworthy nutritional guideline recommendations based on internationally accepted guideline development standards, recommendations that will be informed byrigorous and novel systematic reviews of the benefits andharmsassociated with nutritional exposures, as well as studies on the values and preferences related to dietary behaviors among members of the international community. Discussion: Adhering to international guideline standards, conducting high quality systematic reviews, and actively assessing the values and preferences of key stakeholders is expected to improve the quality of nutritional guidelines and their relevance to end-users, particularly patients and community members. We will send our work for peer review, and if found acceptable, we will publish our nutritional recommendations in top-tier general medicine journals.

著者人数：139名, Accepted: 2010-10-29, 資料番号: SA1002664000

ContextStress urinary incontinence (SUI) and urgency urinary incontinence (UUI) are associated with physical and psychological morbidity, and large societal costs. The long-term effects of delivery modes on each kind of incontinence remain uncertain.ObjectiveTo investigate the long-term impact of delivery mode on SUI and UUI.Evidence acquisitionWe searched Medline, Scopus, CINAHL, and relevant major conference abstracts up to October 31, 2014, including any observational study with adjusted analyses or any randomized trial addressing the association between delivery mode and SUI or UUI ≥1 yr after delivery. Two reviewers extracted data, including incidence/prevalence of SUI and UUI by delivery modes, and assessed risk of bias.Evidence synthesisPooled estimates from 15 eligible studies demonstrated an increased risk of SUI after vaginal delivery versus cesarean section (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.56–2.19; I2=57%; risk difference: 8.2%). Metaregression demonstrated a larger effect of vaginal delivery among younger women (p=0.005). Four studies suggested no difference in the risk of SUI between spontaneous vaginal and instrumental delivery (aOR: 1.11; 95% CI, 0.84–1.45; I2=50%). Eight studies suggested an elevated risk of UUI after vaginal delivery versus cesarean section (aOR: 1.30; 95% CI, 1.02–1.65; I2=37%; risk difference: 2.6%).ConclusionsCompared with cesarean section, vaginal delivery is associated with an almost twofold increase in the risk of long-term SUI, with an absolute increase of 8%, and an effect that is largest in younger women. There is also an increased risk of UUI, with an absolute increase of approximately 3%.Patient summaryIn this systematic review we looked for the long-term effects of childbirth on urinary leakage. We found that vaginal delivery is associated with an almost twofold increase in the risk of developing leakage with exertion, compared with cesarean section, with a smaller effect on leakage in association with urgency.

International audience

National audience

*INRA, centre de Nantes. Unité Régionale de Documentation. BP 71627, 44316 Nantes Cedex 03 Diffusion du document : INRA, centre de Nantes. Unité Régionale de Documentation. BP 71627, 44316 Nantes Cedex 03 Diplôme : Dr. d'Université

International audience