Systematic reviewindependent cross-checkabstract checked I-CHK-104 standard review
How much do we know about poultry and health?
Poultry Consumption and Human Health: How Much Is Really Known? A Systematically Searched Scoping Review and Research Perspective.
Overview
Connolly G et al.. Adv Nutr 2022 · PMID 36351778 · DOI 10.1093/advances/nmac074
A map of 525 studies found little direct research on poultry itself and no randomised trials.
Does the study support the specific claim? Unclear · Methodological quality: moderate
Plain-language summary
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
What research exists on poultry intake and human health?
- How was the study done?
Systematically searched scoping review (protocol on OSF)
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
525 of 13,141 articles
- What was actually found?
525 articles: 212 cancer, 41 CVD, 52 CVD risk factors, 32 T2D, 33 T2D risk factors, 42 body weight, 181 other (incl. mental health). 366 observational, 64 experimental, 76 reviews. No RCT and only 1% of observational studies assessed processed poultry. 'A paucity of research exists to support poultry as health-promoting foods'.
- How large was the observed effect?
525 articles: 212 cancer, 41 CVD, 52 CVD risk factors, 32 T2D, 33 T2D risk factors, 42 body weight, 181 other (incl. mental health). 366 observational, 64 experimental, 76 reviews. No RCT and only 1% of observational studies assessed processed poultry. 'A paucity of research exists to support poultry as health-promoting foods'.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Science has not studied chicken alone very much.
- What are the study's limitations?
Scoping review: no effect estimates or quality rating; Funding not stated in abstract (PubMed: non-US government support)
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Explains why certainty about chicken-specific effects is low.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
General.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Gives no effect sizes.
Scientific in-depth review
1. Full reference
- Authors
- Connolly G et al.
- Journal
- Adv Nutr
- Year
- 2022
- Identifier
- PMID 36351778 DOI 10.1093/advances/nmac074
- Verification
- verified – PubMed efetch 2026-10-26; Crossref 2026-10-26
- Retracted
- no
- Corrections
- none
- Extent checked
- abstract only
- Conflicts of interest and funding
Not stated in abstract; PubMed lists 'Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't'
2. Research question
What research exists on poultry intake and human health?
3. Study design and population
- Study design
- Systematic review – Systematically searched scoping review (protocol on OSF)
- Population
Published studies of any design
- Country
multinational
- Period
literature to 2021
- Sample size
525 of 13,141 articles
- Inclusion and exclusion criteria
as described in the abstract
4. Methods and endpoints
- Exposure / intervention
Poultry intake
- Comparator
various
- Endpoints
Cancer, CVD, T2D, body weight, mental health and other outcomes (mapping only)
- Statistical methods
as reported in the abstract
5. Actual results
- Results
525 articles: 212 cancer, 41 CVD, 52 CVD risk factors, 32 T2D, 33 T2D risk factors, 42 body weight, 181 other (incl. mental health). 366 observational, 64 experimental, 76 reviews. No RCT and only 1% of observational studies assessed processed poultry. 'A paucity of research exists to support poultry as health-promoting foods'.
- Absolute risks
not reported
- Authors' conclusion
Most research assesses poultry only indirectly; new observational and experimental research is needed.
6. Strengths
- Broad systematic search
- Registered protocol
7. Weaknesses
- Scoping review: no effect estimates or quality rating
- Funding not stated in abstract (PubMed: non-US government support)
8. Risk of bias
- Orienting tool
- none applicable
- Type of assessment
- simplified assessment (abstract only)
- Full formal assessment
- no
- Overall risk of bias
- not assessable
- Rationale
Scoping reviews map evidence; they do not rate it.
9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation
Shows that direct evidence on poultry as such is thin in both directions.
10. Relevance to the specific claim
Maps the evidence base: no RCTs on poultry and health; much research is indirect.
11. Independent contrary findings
12. Transferability to Germany and Europe
13. Overall methodological judgement
A map of 525 studies found little direct research on poultry itself and no randomised trials.
| Multidimensional assessment | |
|---|---|
| Authenticity of the source | verified |
| Methodological quality | moderate |
| Risk of bias | not assessable |
| Precision of results | not applicable |
| Directness | indirect |
| Reproducibility | unknown |
| Consistency with the overall evidence | consistent |
| Regional transferability | moderate |
| Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive) | not applicable |
14. Open questions
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 with mixed or unclear results
- Eating chicken causes nightmares, panic attacks, hallucinations and psychological harm in children and adults; panic attacks became widespread in the last 20 years because of mass chicken production. – Studies with mixed or unclear results