Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37800340›Full record

ArticlePublic health nutrition2023

Dietary consumption of beef and red meat: a scoping review and evidence map on cognitive outcomes across the lifespan.

Tristen L Paul, Stephen A Fleming

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Public health nutrition, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

2 authors.

Tristen L PaulTraverse Science, 435 E Hawley Street #816, Mundelein, IL60060, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1128-5737
Stephen A FlemingTraverse Science, 435 E Hawley Street #816, Mundelein, IL60060, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5499-3464

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveMixed evidence exists on the impact of beef consumption on cognition. The goal was to create an evidence map capturing studies assessing beef consumption and cognition to reveal gaps and opportunities in the body of literature.

designA scoping review was conducted to locate studies up to March 2022 using PubMed and backwards citation screening. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers with conflict resolution, and a database was created and made publicly available.

settingIntervention and observational studies.

participantsHumans of any age, sex and/or health status, without moderate to severe cognitive impairment and/or abnormalities.

resultsTwenty-two studies were identified that quantified beef or red meat intake and assessed cognition. Six studies assessed beef intake, with the remaining studies describing intake of red meat that may or may not include beef. Nine articles described randomised controlled trials (RCT), mostly conducted in children. Thirteen described observational studies, primarily conducted on adults and seniors. The most common cognitive domains measured included intelligence and general cognition, and memory. The majority of controlled studies were rated with high risk of bias, with the majority of observational trials rated with serious or greater risk of bias.

conclusionsRed meat and beef intake and cognition is largely understudied. There is a significant lack of replication across study designs, populations, exposures and outcomes measured. The quality of the research would be considerably enhanced by focused assessments of beef intake (and not red meat in general) and specific cognitive domains, along with improved adherence to reporting standards.

Indexed as

LongevityRed MeatAdultAnimalsCattleChildCognitionDietHumansBeefCognitionDietary intakeRed meatScoping review

Identifiers

PMID37800340
PMCPMC10755455

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.