Total meats and total cardiovascular disease.

CVD risk: Data was provided by 2 cohorts, including 3,289 cases. A significant protective effect was found in one cohort of very small size (Jamrozik K [13]). No other association was found. The average RR = 0.97.
Effect modification: No data was found.
CVD mortality: Data was provided by 5 cohorts, including 2,380 cases. A significant protective effect was found in one cohort of very small size (Jamrozik K [13]), but a nonsignificantly increased risk was found in another cohort of very small size (Chang-Claude J [4]). No other associations were found. The average RR = 1.11 for meat consumption.
Effect modification: No effect modification was found by gender (Key TJ [16]).

Conclusion: Inconsistent findings were done relating meat consumption to total CVD mortality. Inconclusive evidence was found for an association between total meats consumption and total CVD mortality. No associations were found with total CVD risk.

Prospective studies of total meats and total CVD risk:
AuthorCohort nameCasesRelative Risk (RR)
21) Yen AM (2008)The KCIS Study3,163HR = 0.98 (0.94-1.01; P = 0.20).
13) Jamrozik K (2000)The Perth Community Study126HR = 0.60 (0.40-0.90).
Total number of cases: 3,289Average RR = 0.97


Prospective studies of total meats and total CVD mortality:
AuthorCohort nameCasesRelative Risk (RR)
16) Key TJ (2009)The EPIC-Oxford Study479DRR = 0.97 (0.78-1.21) for vegetarianism vs nonvegetarianism
13) Jamrozik K (2000)The Perth Community Study96HR = 0.62 (0.39-0.97).
8) Appleby PN (2002)The Oxford Vegetarian Study469DRR = 0.97 (0.80-1.17) for vegetarianism vs nonvegetarianism
8) Appleby PN (2002)The Health Food Shoppers Study1,117DRR = 0.95 (0.84-1.07) for vegetarianism vs nonvegetarianism
4) Chang-Claude J (2005)The German Vegetarian Study219RR = 2.02 (0.91-4.44; P = 0.08).
Total number of cases: 2,380Average RR = 1.11