Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30517731›Full record

Trial reportThe Journal of nutrition2018

Adopting a Mediterranean-Style Eating Pattern with Different Amounts of Lean Unprocessed Red Meat Does Not Influence Short-Term Subjective Personal Well-Being in Adults with Overweight or Obesity.

Lauren E O'Connor, Sarah L Biberstine, Douglas Paddon-Jones, A J Schwichtenberg, Wayne W Campbell

Registry-linked trialOpen access · bronzeAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The Journal of nutrition, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02573129 (Effects of Incorporating Red Meat Into a Mediterranean-style Dietary Pattern on Cardiometabolic and Emotional Well-being), which is not on this map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT02573129 nacompletednot on this map

Effects of Incorporating Red Meat Into a Mediterranean-style Dietary Pattern on Cardiometabolic and Emotional Well-being

TypeinterventionalSponsorPurdue UniversityRan2015 to 2017Enrolled41ConditionsCardiovascular Diseases, Dietary ModificationArmsRed Meat Restricted, Red Meat Rich
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Lauren E O'ConnorDepartments of Nutrition Science.
Sarah L BiberstineDepartments of Nutrition Science.
Douglas Paddon-JonesDepartment of Nutrition and Metabolism, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX.
A J SchwichtenbergHuman Development and Family Studies, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
Wayne W CampbellDepartments of Nutrition Science.
Purdue University West Lafayette · US

Funding

Indiana Clinical and Translational Sciences InstituteUL1TR001108 · NCATS · INDIANA UNIVERSITY INDIANAPOLIS · PI DENNE, SCOTT C., SHEKHAR, ANANTHA · 2013 to 2017
$23.3M
Interdisciplinary Training in Signals Controlling Ingestion and ObesityT32DK076540 · NIDDK · PURDUE UNIVERSITY · PI MATTES, RICHARD D · 2008 to 2018
$766k
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001108NIDDK NIH HHS T32 DK076540
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Reducing red meat intake is commonly recommended. Limited observational studies suggest that healthy eating patterns with red meat are associated with improved quality of life. Objective: The secondary objectives of this randomized crossover controlled-feeding trial were to assess the effects of following a Mediterranean-style eating pattern (Med-Pattern) with different amounts of red meat on indexes of personal well-being (i.e., perceived quality of life, mood, and sleep) in overweight or obese adults. We hypothesized that following a Med-Pattern would improve these outcomes, independent of red meat intake amount. Methods: Forty-one participants [aged 46 ± 2 y; body mass index (kg/m2): 30.5 ± 0.6; n = 28 women, n = 13 men) were provided Med-Pattern foods for two 5-wk periods separated by 4 wk of self-selected eating. The Med-Red Pattern contained ∼500 g/wk (typical US intake), and the Med-Control Pattern contained ∼200 g/wk (commonly recommended intake in heart-healthy eating patterns) of lean, unprocessed beef or pork compensated with mainly poultry and dairy. Baseline and postintervention outcomes measured were perceived quality of life via the MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey, version 2 (SF-36v2), daily mood states via the Profile of Mood States (POMS), sleep perceptions via the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, and sleep patterns via actigraphy. Data were analyzed via a doubly repeated-measures ANOVA adjusted for age, sex, and body mass at each time point. Results: Following a Med-Pattern did not change domains of physical health, mental health, total mood disturbances, sleep perceptions, and sleep patterns but improved subdomains of physical health role limitations (SF-36v2: 93.6-96.7%; P = 0.038), vitality (SF-36v2: 57.9-63.0%; P = 0.020), and fatigue (POMS: 2.9-2.5 arbitrary units; P = 0.039). There were no differences between the Med-Red and Med-Control Patterns (time × pattern, P-interaction > 0.05). Conclusion: Following a Med-Pattern, independent of lean, unprocessed red meat intake, may not be an effective short-term strategy to meaningfully improve indexes of personal well-being in adults who are overweight or obese. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT02573129.

Indexed as

Diet, MediterraneanAdultAffectCross-Over StudiesFeeding BehaviorFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedObesityOverweightQuality of LifeRed MeatSleep

Identifiers

PMID30517731
PMCPMC7263834
OpenAlexW2903939664

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.