Red Meat and Poultry Intakes and Risk of Total and Cause-Specific Mortality: Results from Cohort Studies of Chinese Adults in Shanghai
Open accessAbstract
Most previous studies of meat intake and total or cause-specific mortality were conducted in North America, whereas studies in other areas have been limited and reported inconsistent results. This study investigated the association of red meat or poultry intake with risk of total and cause-specific mortality, including cancer and cardiovascular disease (CVD), in two large population-based prospective cohort studies of 134,290 Chinese adult women and men in Shanghai. Meat intakes were assessed through validated food frequency questionnaires administered in person at baseline. Vital status and dates and causes of deaths were ascertained through annual linkage to the Shanghai Vital Statistics Registry and Shanghai Cancer Registry databases and home visits every 2-3 years. Cox regression was used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the risk of death associated with quintiles of meat intake. During 803,265 person-years of follow up for women and 334,281 person-years of follow up for men, a total of 4,210 deaths in women and 2,733 deaths in men accrued. The median intakes of red meat were 43 g/day among women and 54 g/day among men, and pork constituted at least 95% of total meat intake for both women and men. Red meat intake was associated with increased total mortality among men, but not among women; the HR (95% CI) comparing the highest with the lowest quintiles were 1.18 (1.02-1.35) and 0.92 (0.82-1.03), respectively. This sex difference was statistically significant (P = 0.01). Red meat intake was associated with increased risk of ischemic heart disease mortality (HR = 1.41, 95% CI = 1.05-1.89) and with decreased risk of hemorrhagic stroke mortality (HR = 0.62, 95% CI = 0.45-0.87). There were suggestive inverse associations of poultry intake with risk of total and all-CVD mortality among men, but not among women. Further investigations are needed to elucidate the sex-specific associations between red meat intake and mortality.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In several large studies, poultry is not significantly associated with CVD events; in other cohorts, poultry is associated with modestly lower risk of CVD, with smaller observed benefits than seen for fish, nuts, or legumes.
“In several large studies, poultry is not significantly associated with CVD events;174, 186-189 and in other cohorts, with modestly lower risk of CVD, with smaller observed benefits than seen for fish, nuts, or legumes.52, 53”
From Dietary and Policy Priorities for Cardiovascular Disease, Diabetes, and Obesity: A Comprehensive Review (2016) · cites this paper as [187]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 35 · Cited by 84
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [15]Yang Y, Wang G, Pan X (2002) China Food Composition Tables. Beijing, China: Beijing University Medical Press.
- Authors
- Takata, Y., Shu, X.-O., Gao, Y.-T., Li, H., Zhang, X., Gao, J., Cai, H., Yang, G., Xiang, Y.-B., & Zheng, W.
- Affiliations
- Vanderbilt University (US)
- Shanghai Cancer Institute (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Shu, Xiao-Ou
- ORCID
- Venue
- PLoS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2013-02-22
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- e56963
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC3579947
- OpenAlex
- W2044870190
- Cited by
- 84
- References
- 35
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 3
- FWCI
- 9.86
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R01HL095931)
- National Cancer Institute (R37CA070867, R01CA082729, UM1CA173640)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Nutritional Studies and Diet
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Meat and Animal Product Quality
- Keywords
- red meat consumption, all-cause mortality, cause-specific mortality, cancer mortality, cardiovascular mortality, ischemic heart disease mortality, sex differences, pork, Chinese adults, Shanghai
- MeSH terms
- Aged, Animals, Cardiovascular Diseases, China, Female, Humans, Male, Meat, Middle Aged, Neoplasms, Poultry, Prospective Studies, Risk Factors, Sex Factors, Asian People
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review