Meta-analysisindependent cross-checkabstract only checked I-CHK-08 standard review
Meat types and death risk
Association between total, processed, red and white meat consumption and all-cause, CVD and IHD mortality: a meta-analysis of cohort studies.
Overview
Abete I et al.. Br J Nutr 2014 · PMID 24932617 · DOI 10.1017/S000711451400124X
Processed and red meat were linked to higher death risk, white meat (including poultry) was not.
Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: moderate
Plain-language summary
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Meat types and mortality
- How was the study done?
Meta-analysis of cohort studies
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
1,674,272 individuals; 13 cohorts
- What was actually found?
Processed meat: +22% all-cause, +18% CVD mortality (highest vs lowest); red meat +16% CVD mortality; no association for total and white meat.
- How large was the observed effect?
Random effects; dose-response
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Poultry is not linked to earlier death in these studies.
- What are the study's limitations?
High heterogeneity; Older
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Contradicts.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
White meat definition varies.
Scientific in-depth review
1. Full reference
- Authors
- Abete I et al.
- Journal
- Br J Nutr
- Year
- 2014
- Identifier
- PMID 24932617 DOI 10.1017/S000711451400124X
- Verification
- verified – PubMed efetch 2026-10-25
- Retracted
- no
- Corrections
- none
- Extent checked
- abstract only
- Conflicts of interest and funding
None stated
2. Research question
Meat types and mortality
3. Study design and population
- Study design
- Meta-analysis – Meta-analysis of cohort studies
- Population
13 cohorts
- Country
Multinational
- Period
Not stated
- Sample size
1,674,272 individuals
- Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Prospective cohorts
4. Methods and endpoints
- Exposure / intervention
Total, processed, red, white meat
- Comparator
Lowest category
- Endpoints
All-cause, CVD, IHD mortality
- Statistical methods
Random effects; dose-response
5. Actual results
- Results
Processed meat: +22% all-cause, +18% CVD mortality (highest vs lowest); red meat +16% CVD mortality; no association for total and white meat.
- Absolute risks
not reported
- Authors' conclusion
Processed meat may increase mortality; interpret with caution due to heterogeneity.
6. Strengths
- Large
7. Weaknesses
- High heterogeneity
- Older
8. Risk of bias
- Orienting tool
- AMSTAR 2
- Type of assessment
- simplified assessment (abstract only)
- Full formal assessment
- no
- Overall risk of bias
- some concerns
- Rationale
Simplified.
9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation
Null for white meat.
10. Relevance to the specific claim
11. Independent contrary findings
Not applicable.
12. Transferability to Germany and Europe
High.
13. Overall methodological judgement
No mortality signal for white meat.
| Multidimensional assessment | |
|---|---|
| Authenticity of the source | verified |
| Methodological quality | moderate |
| Risk of bias | some concerns |
| Precision of results | moderate |
| Directness | direct |
| Reproducibility | replicated |
| Consistency with the overall evidence | consistent |
| Regional transferability | high |
| Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive) | not applicable |
14. Open questions
None.
15. Linked fact checks
- Chicken is forbidden because it is harmful in itself, not because of how it is raised (it is 'the pig of birds'); its fibres and waste products are hard to digest. – Studies contradicting or limiting the claim