Dataset Information

Composition differences between organic and conventional meat: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Demand for organic meat is partially driven by consumer perceptions that organic foods are more nutritious than non-organic foods. However, there have been no systematic reviews comparing specifically the nutrient content of organic and conventionally produced meat. In this study, we report results of a meta-analysis based on sixty-seven published studies comparing the composition of organic and non-organic meat products. For many nutritionally relevant compounds (e.g. minerals, antioxidants and most individual fatty acids (FA)), the evidence base was too weak for meaningful meta-analyses. However, significant differences in FA profiles were detected when data from all livestock species were pooled. Concentrations of SFA and MUFA were similar or slightly lower, respectively, in organic compared with conventional meat. Larger differences were detected for total PUFA and n-3 PUFA, which were an estimated 23 (95 % CI 11, 35) % and 47 (95 % CI 10, 84) % higher in organic meat, respectively. However, for these and many other composition parameters, for which meta-analyses found significant differences, heterogeneity was high, and this could be explained by differences between animal species/meat types. Evidence from controlled experimental studies indicates that the high grazing/forage-based diets prescribed under organic farming standards may be the main reason for differences in FA profiles. Further studies are required to enable meta-analyses for a wider range of parameters (e.g. antioxidant, vitamin and mineral concentrations) and to improve both precision and consistency of results for FA profiles for all species. Potential impacts of composition differences on human health are discussed.

SUBMITTER: Srednicka-Tober D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4838835 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWith obesity prevalence projected to increase, the demand for bariatric surgery will consequently rise. Enhanced recovery programmes aim for improved recovery, earlier discharge, and more efficient use of resources following surgery. This systematic literature review aimed to evaluate the evidence available on the effects of enhanced recovery programmes after three common bariatric procedures: laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB), laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG), and one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB).MethodsMEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library and the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database were searched for studies published in 2012-2019 comparing outcomes with enhanced recovery programmes versus conventional care after bariatric surgery in Europe, the Middle East and Africa. Data were extracted and meta-analyses or descriptive analyses performed when appropriate using R.ResultsOf 1152 screened articles, seven relevant studies including 3592 patients were identified. Six reported outcomes for 1434 patients undergoing LRYGB; however, as only individual studies reported on LSG and OAGB these could not be included in the analyses. The meta-analysis revealed a significantly shorter mean duration of hospital-stay for LRYGB enhanced recovery programmes than conventional care (mean difference [95% CI]: -1.34 days [-2.01, -0.67]; p<0.0001), supported by sensitivity analysis excluding retrospective studies. Meta-analysis found no significant difference in 30-day readmission rate (risk ratio [95% CI]: 1.39 [0.84, 2.28]; p = 0.2010). Complication rates were inconsistently reported by Clavien-Dindo grade, but descriptive analysis showed generally higher low-grade rates for enhanced recovery programmes; the trend reversed for high-grade complications. Reoperation rates were rarely reported; no significant differences were seen.ConclusionThese results support enhanced recovery programmes allowing shorter inpatient stay without significant differences in readmission rate following LRYGB, although complication and reoperation rate comparisons were inconclusive. Further research is needed to fill current data gaps including the lack of studies on LSG and OAGB.

Project description:BackgroundDebate on the potential carcinogenic effects of meat intake is open and the relationship between meat consumption and risk of prostate cancer remains uncertain. This meta-analysis was conducted to summarize earlier prospective studies on the association of meat consumption with risk of prostate cancer.MethodsRelevant studies were identified by exploring PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Google Scholar databases up to December 2020. Fixed-effects and random-effects meta-analyses were used for pooling the relative risks (RRs). Heterogeneity across studies was evaluated using the Q-statistic and I-square (I 2). A funnel plot and Egger's test was used to detect publication bias. Linear and non-linear dose-response analyses were performed to estimate the dose-response relations between meat intake and risk of prostate cancer.ResultsTwenty-five prospective studies were included in this meta-analysis. Totally, 1,900,910 participants with 35,326 incident cases of prostate cancer were investigated. Pooling the eligible effect sizes, we observed that high consumption of processed meat might be associated with an increased risk of "total prostate cancer" (RR: 1.06; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.10; I 2 = 1.5%, P = 0.43) and "advanced prostate cancer" (1.17; 1.09, 1.26; I 2 = 58.8%, P = 0.01). However, the association between processed meat and "advanced prostate cancer" was not significant in the random-effects model: 1.12 (95% CI: 0.98, 1.29). A linear dose-response analysis indicated that an increment of 50 grams per day of processed meat intake might be related to a 4% greater risk of "total prostate cancer" (1.04; 1.00, 1.08; I 2 = 0.0%, P = 0.51). "Total meat intake" was marginally associated with all outcomes of prostate cancer risk (1.04; 1.01, 1.07; I 2 = 58.4%, P < 0.001).ConclusionsThis systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies indicated that increased consumption of "total meat" and "processed meat" might be associated with a higher risk of prostate cancer.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=230824, identifier: CRD42021230824.

Project description:ObjectiveA meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was performed to compare the effects of miniaturized extracorporeal circulation (MECC) and conventional extracorporeal circulation (CECC) on morbidity and mortality rates after cardiac surgery.MethodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted using Ovid, PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane databases. Randomized controlled trials from the year 2000 with n > 40 patients were considered. Key search terms included variations of "mini," "cardiopulmonary," "bypass," "extracorporeal," "perfusion," and "circuit." Studies were assessed for bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. The primary outcomes were postoperative mortality and stroke. Secondary outcomes included arrhythmia, myocardial infarction, renal failure, blood loss, and a composite outcome comprised of mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction and renal failure. Duration of intensive care unit, and hospital stay was also recorded.ResultsThe 42 studies eligible for this study included a total of 2154 patients who underwent CECC and 2196 patients who underwent MECC. There were no significant differences in any preoperative or demographic characteristics. Compared with CECC, MECC did not reduce the incidence of mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, and renal failure but did significantly decrease the composite of these outcomes (odds ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50-0.81; P = .0002). MECC was also associated with reductions in arrhythmia (odds ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.54-0.83; P = .0003), blood loss (mean difference [MD], -96.37 mL; 95% CI, -152.70 to -40.05 mL; P = .0008), hospital stay (MD, -0.70 days; 95% CI, -1.21 to -0.20 days; P = .006), and intensive care unit stay (MD, -2.27 hours; 95% CI, -3.03 to -1.50 hours; P < .001).ConclusionsMECC demonstrates clinical benefits compared with CECC. Further studies are required to perform a cost-utility analysis and to assess the long-term outcomes of MECC. These should use standardized definitions of endpoints such as mortality and renal failure to reduce inconsistency in outcome reporting.

Dataset Information

Composition differences between organic and conventional meat: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets