Association of poultry consumption with cardiovascular diseases and all-cause mortality: a systematic review and dose response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies

Abstract

According to previous cohort studies it is suggested that a high intake of poultry does not adversely affect cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to summarize and analyze the association between dietary poultry intake and the risk for CVDs, coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke and all-cause mortality (ACM). Twenty-four cohort studies were included, and the results showed a trivial inverse association for the highest vs. lowest intake category between poultry and ACM (risk ratio [RR] = 0.96; 95% CI: 0.93, 0.98; I² = 5%). For all other outcomes no association was observed in the high vs. low intake meta-analysis. The results from the primary pooled data for each 100 g/d increase in poultry intake indicated no association for all outcomes. Further, the non-linear dose-response analysis showed some evidence for non-linearity between poultry consumption and risk for CVD and ACM. Additionally, substituting red and/or processed meat with poultry was inversely associated with the risk for ACM, CVDs, CHD and stroke. The certainty of evidence was rated as very low or low. This meta-analysis suggests that based upon the results from the substitution analyses poultry could be a healthier alternative to red and processed meat.

Supplemental data for this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2021.1975092

Keywords:

• Poultry
• dietary intake
• cardiovascular disease
• mortality
• systematic review
• meta-analysis

Acknowledgments

We would like to explain the difference in reporting of the information regarding the total number of participants of the included studies provided by this manuscript and from the study preregistration from the OSF-Platform. The preregistration of this study was in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) – methodology (Liberati et al. 2009) submitted before the data analysis was started. During the data analysis we observed that there were mistakenly other values extracted, due to a complex reporting of data by some studies (Farvid et al., 2017; Sauvaget et al., 2003). In this manuscript the values are corrected. The incorrect data regarding the total number of participants in the preregistration remained uncorrected, due to the prohibition of editing the registration after publishing.

Author contributions

Design and conception: R.E.P. and C.E. Literature research, screening and evaluation for inclusion: R.E.P., V.H., and C.E. Data extraction: R.E.P. and V.H. Statistical analysis: L.S. Data interpretation: R.E.P., C.E. and L.S., Drafting of the article: R.E.P., C.E. and L.S. Critical revision: L.S. and C.E. All authors approved to the final manuscript for submission.

Disclosure statement

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Funding

The author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article.